Delhi District Court
State vs Yogesh Kumar on 9 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
State Vs Yogesh Kumar
FIR No. 163/00
u/s 279/337 IPC
PS Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 12.02.2001
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 09.09.2014
Date of judgment : 09.09.2014
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 163/00
2.Date of the Commission : 08.03.2000
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Yogesh Kumar S/o Sh. Goverdhan
: Singh R/o H. No. 67, Village Madangir,
: New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : HC Satvinder Singh, No. 440/SD,
: PS Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted u/s 279/337 IPC
FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 1/14
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2000 at about 3.00pm at Press Enclave Road near Vocational College, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, accused Yogesh Kumar was found driving a vehicle i.e. car bearing no. DL-4C-3915 on the public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and public safety to others and while driving the above said vehicle in same manner accused hit against one scooter bearing no. DL-3SE-8422 and caused simple injury on the person of Parvinder Kaur and Manjeet Singh and thereby accused Yogesh Kumar committed an offence punishable u/s 279/337 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 163/00 under section 279/337 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 12.02.2001.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charge for the offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC was framed against the accused person namely Yogesh Kumar and read out to the said accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 11.04.2002.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused Yogesh Kumar, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
6. PW-1 Manjeet Singh being injured was examined on 28.08.2002 and deposed that on 08.03.2000 he along with his wife was coming from FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 2/14 School around 3 O'clock on his two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL-3SC-8422 and at that time when they reached at the turning of Bhagat Singh College, Sheikh Sarai, one Maruti car bearing no. DL-4C-3915 which was being driven by accused, came from the side of Press Enclave Road and took the turn on the side of Bhagat Singh side, again said the accused present in the court was coming on the opposite direction and took a turn from the cut and hit against his scooter due to which he along with his wife received injury and accused also received injury and ran away from the spot. In this regard, he made a call at 100 through his mobile phone and PCR came and he disclosed all the facts to PCR officials and on his information PCR official went towards the side of Bhagat Singh College but could not trace the accused and thereafter, PCR official called the local police. He further deposed that initially he and his wife were taken to police post and thereafter to AIIMS Hospital. He further deposed that the accident took place due to the fault of the accused. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by police at PS. He further deposed that the scooter was seized by the police and later on he took the same on superdari vide superdginama Ex. PW-1/A.
9. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that Maruti car hit his scooter from the front side and when he was driving the scooter, he saw the car coming from opposite direction and he was in the impression that he was going straight and accused would take the brake and allow him to take turn but without caring so accused did so. He further deposed that he had seen the accused second time in the court after the incident. He further deposed that they remained at the spot for about 30 minutes in injured condition and he never visited the spot after the incident. He further deposed that they reached in the hospital FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 3/14 around 4pm and remained there for about 20/25 minutes and thereafter, they came back to police post. He further deposed that his signatures were obtained on the paper at the spot. He further deposed that he cannot tell the speed of the car but he was rash at that time. He denied the suggestion that at the time of accident he was rash or negligent or that speed of maruti car was slow and without caring he hit against the car.
10. PW-2 Rajender Pal being superdar was examined on 28.08.2002 and deposed that on 14.03.2000 he was served upon a notice and he gave the reply of the same vide Ex. PW-2/A and maruti car was taken into possession vide Ex. PW-2/B. Later on he took the same on superdari vide superdginama Ex. PW-2/C, at the time of accident the maruti car was in the possession of Yogesh Kumar. The documents of the car was also taken into possession and seized vide Ex. PW-2/D.
11. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that the accused was his employer since one year from the incident and whenever he went to the accused with the car, accused had not caused any accident.
12. PW-3 Smt. Parvinder Kaur being another injured was examined on 14.07.2003 and deposed that on 08.03.2000 she was a pillion rider on scooter bearing no. DL-3SC-8422 to fetch her son from School. She further deposed that her husband was driving the said scooter and her son was also sitting on the scooter and at about 3.00pm when they were crossing Bhagat Singh College, one Maruti car bearing no. DL-4C-3915 came from the cut adjacent to Bhagat Singh college and while driving his car speedily, driver of the car hit against their scooter as a result of which she, her husband and her son received injury. She further deposed that she cannot identify the person to be the driver of the offending vehicle. She further deposed that two police FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 4/14 officials came there and took them to the hospital.
13. PW-4 Ct. Hari Singh was examined on 16.03.2005 and deposed that on 08.03.2000 he was posted as DD writer in PP Pushp Vihar and on that day he had recorded DD no. 15 on the basis of a telephone call about an accident which had taken place at Press Enclave Road, Vocational College and he had handed over the copy of said DD to Ct. Kali Chand for being handed over to HC Satender. He further deposed that the said DD has already been destroyed by the order of Assistant Commissioner of Police. The photo state copy of order is mark A. The copy of said DD on record is Ex. PW-4/A.
14. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that the copy of DD Ex. PW-4/A was not on his hand.
15. PW-5 Ct. Sawant Ram was examined on 23.02.2006 and deposed that on 16.03.2000 he was posted as Ct. at PP Pushp Vihar, PS Malviya Nagar and was present at PP Pushp Vihar along with IO and on that day Shri Rajender Pal produced the vehicle bearing no. DL-4C-3915 and driver/accused to IO. Accused Yogesh Kumar present in the court was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-5/A and DL of the accused was seized vide Ex. PW-5/B. Insurance paper and RC of the car was seized vide already Ex. PW-2/D. Accused was released on bail and IO recorded his statement.
16. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested in his presence or Rajender Pal produced the vehicle in his presence or that he signed these documents at the PS at the instance of IO. He further denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely.
FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 5/14
17. PW-6 Sh. Bhuvnesh Sharma being record clerk was examined on 02.08.2006 and deposed that on 08.03.2000 MLC bearing no. 19954 and 19955/2000 in respect of Manjit Singh and Parvinder Kaur were prepared by Dr. Sanjay Mandal vide memos Ex. PW-6/A and B respectively and the doctor has left the hospital and his presence whereabouts are not available with hospital. He further identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Sanjay Mandal on the basis of record.
18. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that he joined AIIMS in 1991 and he admitted that MLCs were not prepared in his presence and he has no knowledge about the contents of MLC.
19. PW-7 Nand Lal Dua being retired foreman DTC was examined on 02.08.2006 and deposed that on 01.08.2000 he had conducted mechanical inspection of vehicle bearing no. DL-3SC-8422 and one Maruti car bearing no. DL-4C-3915 at PS Malviya Nagar at the request of IO vide detailed report Ex. PW-7/A and B respectively.
20. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
21. PW-8 Inspector Satish Kumar who is a formal witness was examined on 09.07.2010 and proved the FIR Ex. PW-8/A and endorsement on the basis of rukka Ex. PW-8/B (OSR).
22. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
23. PW-9 HC Surjit Singh was examined on 09.07.2010 and deposed that on 25.04.2000 he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar as HC and on that day, application for TIP of accused Yogesh Kumar was filed in the court of Sh. M.R. Sethi, the then Ld. MM, the carbon copy of the said TIP FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 6/14 application is Ex. PW-9/A and accused refused to take part in the TIP Proceedings, carbon copy of TIP proceedings is Ex. PW-9/B and thereafter, he moved an application for copy of the TIP proceedings, copy of the said application is Ex. PW-9/C.
24. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
25. PW-10 ASI Satvinder Singh being IO was examined on 07.06.2014 and deposed that on 08.03.2000 he was posted as HC at PS Malviya Nagar and on that day he had received DD no. 15 regarding accident and thereafter, he along with Ct. Manoj Kumar reached the spot i.e. Vocational College, Press Enclave Road where he met with injured namely Manjeet Singh and his wife namely Parvinder Kaur and he also found a scooter bearing registration no. DL-3SE-4822 in accidental condition. He further deposed that he left Ct. at the spot and he took the injured to AIIMS Hospital for medical treatment and the injured had not given any statement on that day. He further deposed that he kept the said DD entry pending. He further deposed that on 09.03.2000 he himself visited to the residence of injured persons but they again refused to give any statement. He further deposed that he registered the case on the basis of DD no. 15, same is already Ex. PW-4/A bearing his signature at point C and prepared the site plant vide Ex. PW-10/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that during the course of investigation he had given a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to the owner of vehicle which is already Ex. PW-2/A and received reply in reference to owner of vehicle bearing no. DL-4C-3915 (maruti 800) and owner of vehicle namely Rajender Pal himself produced the driver of offending vehicle with DL and RC, same were seized by him vide memo Ex. PW-2/B bearing his signature at point C. He further deposed that he had also seized FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 7/14 scooter bearing registration no. DL-3SE-4822 vide memo Ex. PW-10/B bearing his signature at point A and arrested the accused Yogesh Kumar and conducted his personal search memo vide Ex. PW-10/C and already Ex. PW-5/A bearing his signature at point A respectively and got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles, same were already exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A and PW-7/B both bearing his signature at point C respectively and collected the opinion on MLC and prepared the charge sheet and filed before the court. He further identified the accused present in the court.
26. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that the incident took place at about 3.00pm and he had received DD no. 15 at about 4.15pm and reached the spot at about 4.30pm as he was present nearby in the locality. He further deposed that he does not remember the exact location of locality and when he visited the spot of incident, he found only two injured persons and one scooter in accidental condition. He admitted that at the spot he met with two injured and a boy aged about 6-7 years and he had not mentioned anywhere about the said boy. He further deposed that he prepared site plan after returning from hospital on the same day. He further admitted that he was not an eye witness of accident and he was accompanied with Ct. Manoj Kumar when he visited the place of accident. Manoj Kumar was along with me in the area of Pushp Vihar when he received DD no. 15 through Ct. kali Charan. The said Manoj Kumar was not an eye witness to the accident. He denied the suggestion that the site plan was prepared on the basis of approximation or that the injured slipped and as a result he did not give his statement or that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
27. As all witnesses were examined by the prosecution, PE was ordered to be closed on 07.06.2014. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 8/14 was recorded on 04.08.2014 in which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he does not want to lead any defence evidence.
28. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence counsel. Heard.
Reasons for Decision
29. In the present matter prosecution has examined 10 witnesses in total to prove its allegations qua accused that on the date and time as earlier mentioned, the accused Yogesh Kumar was driving his vehicle i.e. Maruti car bearing no. DL-4C-3915 on the public way in a rash and negligent manner and hit against scooter bearing no. DL-3SE-8422 and thereby causing simple injuries to the Manjeet Singh and Smt. Parvinder Kaur and thereby committing offences punishable u/s 279/337 IPC.
30. Further, before appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to state the essential ingredients of section 279 IPC. Same are as follows:
(1)That the accident actually took place. (2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
(3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
The words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
Quoting from the article "Negligence, Mens Rea and Criminal Responsibility" by H.L.A.Hart in Punishment and Responsibility the FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 9/14 dictionary further goes on to explain the difference between an act done inadvertently and an act done negligently.
"[A] careful consideration is needed of the difference between the meaning of the expression like 'inadvertently' and 'while his mind was a blank' on the one hand, and 'negligently' on the other hand. In ordinary English, and also in Lawyer's English, when harm has resulted from someone's negligence, if we say of that person that he has acted negligently we are not thereby merely describing the frame of mind in which he acted. 'He negligently broke a saucer' is not the same kind of expression as 'he inadvertently broke a saucer'. The point of adverb 'inadvertently' is merely to inform us of the agent's psychological state, whereas if we say 'He broke it negligently' we are not merely adding to this an element of blame or reproach, but something quite specific, viz. we are referring to the fact that the agent failed to comply with a standard of conduct with which any ordinary reasonable man could and would have complied: a standard requiring him to take precautions against harm. The word 'negligently', both in legal and non legal contexts, makes an essential reference to an omission to do what is thus required: it is not a flatly descriptive psychological expression like 'his mind was a blank'."
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines 'Rash'as doing something that may not be sensible without first thinking about the possible results.
Elaborating further, in State of H.P. v. Piar Chand, Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2003, decided on 2.6.2003, Himachal Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the meaning of the expression " rashness " and " negligence "
held as follows :
"18. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injury and without knowl- edge that injury would probably be caused. Therefore, to FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 10/14 incur criminal liability, the act must be done with rashness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negli- gence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exer- cise reasonable care and proper precaution imperative to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a individual."
8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J. in these words :
"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. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In Re : Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. HCR 119)".
31. Prosecution has examined ten witnesses in total including injured persons namely Manjit Singh and Parvinder Kaur. Charge u/s 279/337 IPC was framed qua accused Yogesh Kumar on 11.04.2002. PW-1 Manjit Singh is one of the injured persons who is also the complainant in the present matter who deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 08.03.2000 he was coming along with his wife at around 3 O'clock on his two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL-3SC-8422 and his wife was a pillion rider. He further deposed that when they reached at the turning point of Bhagat Singh College, Sheikh Sarai, one Maruti car bearing no. DL-4C-3915 being driven by accused, came FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 11/14 from the side of Press Enclave Road and took turn on the side of Bhagat Singh college. This witness deposed that the accused present in the court was coming from the opposite direction and took turn from a cut when he was going straight on the road. He further deposed that the accused took turn without noticing the traffic on the road and the complainant along with his wife fell on the road and as the accused ran away, he made a call on 100 number and was taken to the AIIMS Hospital by PCR. He further deposed that he saw the accused for the first time when he was hit on the spot and that his statement was recorded in the PS. He further identified the scooter which was released on superdari to him vide superdginama Ex. PW-1/A.
32. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein he reiterated that the accused was rash in driving and denied the suggestion that he was not driving at a fast speed. PW-3 is other injured namely Parvinder Kaur who is the wife of the PW-1 who also deposed the lines on similar to PW-1 corroborating the date and time of the incident and the fact that she was a pillion rider along with her husband. She further deposed as regards the place of incident. PW-2 Rajinder Pal has been examined who deposed that on 14.03.2000 he was served upon a notice and gave the reply of the same which is Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point X and maruti car was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW-2/B. He further deposed that he took the car on superdari and at the time of accident the maruti car was in the possession of Yogesh Kumar who is the accused present in the court. He further exhibited superdginama Ex. PW-2/C bearing his signature at point X regarding the offending vehicle being maruti car bearing no. DL-4C-3915. He further stated that the documents of the car were also seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/D bearing his signature at point X.
33. Apart from these witnesses, prosecution has examined formal FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 12/14 witnesses being PW-4 Ct. Hari Singh who reached the spot after receiving DD no. 15 as regards accident. PW-5 Ct. Sawant Ram has been examined who corroborated the superdar of the offending vehicle having produced the vehicle bearing no. DL-4C-3915 and also having produced the driver Yogesh Kumar before the IO, he also identified his signature on the seizure memo of the offending vehicle at point B and also deposed as regards the arrest and personal search of the accused by the IO being Ex. PW-5/A bearing his signature at point A. He further identified his signature at point A on the seizure memo of the DL which is Ex. PW-5/B and other insurance papers and RC of the car which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/D bearing his signature at point B.
34. Another witness who was examined is the mechanical inspector who has been examined as PW-7 and who exhibited the mechanical inspection reports of both the vehicles which have been exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A and PW-7/B both bearing his signature at point A. PW-8 is the duty officer who received rukka Ex. PW-4/A from Ct. Manoj and recorded the FIR, copy of which has been exhibited as Ex. PW-8/A (OSR) and who also identified his endorsement on rukka vide Ex. PW-8/B. PW-9 Surjit Singh has been examined as HC who moved an application for TIP of accused which was conducted by the then Ld. MM and and the application has been exhibited as Ex. PW-9/A and carbon copy of TIP proceedings is Ex. PW-9/B and the copy of application for copy of the TIP proceedings has been exhibited as Ex. PW-9/C.
35. Apart from this witness, PW-6 has been examined as Bhuvnesh Sharma being record clerk who identified writing and signature of doctor bearing MLC Ex. PW-6/A and PW-6/B.
36. Apart from these witnesses, IO ASI Satvinder Singh has also FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 13/14 been examined who has further corroborated the sequence of events leading to the accident. The testimonies of the above mentioned witnesses along with documents as examined by the prosecution clearly prove the guilt of the accused as having been caused the accident as a result of which PW-1 namely Manjit Singh and PW-3 namely Parvinder Kaur fell on the road and the fact that they received injuries has further been substantiated by MLC which opined the injuries to be simple in nature as caused on account of road traffic accident. Injury of PW-1 Manjit Singh has been further substantiated by Ex. PW-6/A which again opined the nature of injury received by injured having brought by HC Satvinder Singh for examination on 08.03.2000 at 4.30pm. The date and time of the incident written on the MLC further corroborate the version of both the injured persons.
37. Thus, it is clear that the accident caused on account of rash and negligence driving of the accused. Hence, on the basis of above mentioned material on record, the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and he is required to be convicted for offences u/s 279/337 IPC. Accused Yogesh Kumar is convicted for offence u/s under section 279/337 IPC.
Be listed for arguments on sentence on 15.09.2014.
ANNOUNCED IN THE COURT (CHETNA SINGH) ON 09.09.2014 MM-02(SD)/09.09.2014
Certified that this judgment contains 14 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM-02(SD)/09.09.2014
FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 14/14
State Vs Yogesh Kumar
FIR No.163/00
u/s 279/337 IPC
PS Malviya Nagar
16.09.2014
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict is present in person with Ld. Counsel.
Complainant and injured both are absent despite service.
Arguments on sentence advanced.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the convict is the first time offender and has clean antecedent and is the sole bread earner of his family. Hence, it is prayed that either he be released on probation of good conduct or sentence to period already undergone.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued for maximum punishment, as he states that the offence has been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt and the convict does not deserve any leniency as he caused simple injuries to Parvinder Kaur and Manjit Singh.
Heard.
Aggravating Circumstances:
Facts leading to the conviction of the convict clearly reveals that the convict was found driving his vehicle bearing no. DL4C3915 in a rash and negligent manner and caused simple injuries to Parvinder Kaur and Manjit Singh.
FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 15/14 Thus, his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Mitigating Circumstances:
(1)That the convict is the sole bread earner.
(2)That he is the first time offender.
(3) That the trial has been dragged for 14 long years.
Considering all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and on account of submission made by Ld. Counsel for the convict on sentence, this court is of the considered opinion that convict is released on Probation of good conduct u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 however, he is directed to deposit compensation of Rs. 10,000/ each u/s 5 (1)(a) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to be paid to the injured persons namely Parvinder Kaur and Manjit Singh.
Compensation of Rs. 20,000/ has been deposited by convict vide receipt no. 894276 in the treasury. Injured persons namely Parvinder Kaur and Manjit Singh are at liberty to withdraw the same within six month from today failing which the compensation amount shall stand forfeited to the State.
In view of the same, surety of the convict is discharged. Endorsement if any, be cancelled. Original documents if any, be returned to the surety.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM02/SD/16.09.2014
FIR No. 163/00 State Vs Yogesh Kumar Pages 16/14