Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Parkash on 30 August, 2012
Challan No. - 207588
IN THE COURT OF MS. PREETI PAREWA , MM, TRAFFIC01,
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
State V/s. Ram Parkash
Challan No. 207588
Vehicle no. DL2W 2015
Circle - G.K.C.
Date of institution of the Challan : 08042012
Date on which order was reserved : 21082012
Date of decision : 30082012
JUDGMENT :
(a) The date of commission of offence : 07042012
(b) The name, parentage of accused : Ram Parkash S/O Sh. Chander Pal R/O 8/260, Dakshinpuri New Delhi64
(c) The offence complained of : U/s 66.1/192 A, 50/177 of M. V. Act.
(d) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty. (e) The final order : Acquitted. (f) The date of such order : 30082012 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision :
1. The accused in this case was sent up for trial the commission of offence u/s 66.1/192 A & 50/177 of M. V. Act.
Vehicle No. DL2W 2015 State V/s. Ram Parkash Page 1 of 7 Challan No. - 207588
2. The facts in brief as per the prosecution story are that on 07042012 at about 8.50 pm the accused Ram Parkash was driving one Gramin Sewa bearing no. DL2W 2015 while coming from Pushpa Bhawan side and going towards Shekhsarai and carrying passengers in BRT corridor without route permit and also have defective number plate. Accordingly, the accused was challaned u/s 66.1/192 A & 50/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as M. V. Act, 1988)
3. The accused appeared in the court & he was informed of the substance of the allegation against him, vide notice dated 09042012 u/s 66.1/192 A & 50/177 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case the prosecution has examined three witnesses namely Ct. Vijay as PW1, Ct. Vipin Kumar as PW2 and SI/ZO, Samsuddin as PW3 i.e. Challaning Officer. PE was closed on 22052012.
5. PW1 deposed that on 07042012 at about 8.50 pm one Gramin Sewa bearing no.
DL2W 2015 was coming from Pushpa Bhawan side and going towards Shekh Sarai said was carrying 3 female and 2 male passengers. He further deposed that the route permit of the offending vehicle was from Sangam Vihar to Saket.
In his crossexamination, he deposed that he was standing at Shekh Sarai Red light signal and the offending vehicle was stopped 20 meters before the red light signal of Shekh Sarai. He further deposed that the female passengers were sitting at the rear seat of the driver and the male passengers were sitting at the las raw. He further deposed that the fair charges were not inquired from the passengers. He further deposed that he did not sign on the challan as a witness. He denied the suggestion Vehicle No. DL2W 2015 State V/s. Ram Parkash Page 2 of 7 Challan No. - 207588 that he was deposing falsely on the instructions of his senior.
PW2 deposed that on 07042012, at about 8.50 am he was posted at Shekhsarai. He further deposed that one Gramin Sewa bearing no. DL2W 2015 while coming from Pushp Bhawan and going towards Shekhsarai was carrying passengers. He further deposed that thereafter, the offending vehicle was stopped and checked and found that the permit was from Sangam Vihar to Saket and number plate was also found defective. Thereafter, the offending vehicle was challaned.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he was standing at Shekhsarai red light signal. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was stopped at about 30 meters before the red light signal. He further deposed that there were total five passengers (3 male and 2 female). One male passenger was sitting with driver, other male passenger was sitting at the rear seat of the driver and the female passengers were sitting at the last row. He further deposed that the passengers were coming from Pushpa Bhawan side and their destination was Shekhsarai. He further deposed that the passengers had taken the ticket of Rs. 10/ each. He denied the suggestion that he was not present on the spot and was deposing falsely on the instruction of his senior. He further deposed that he had not signed the challan as a witness on the spot.
PW3 deposed that on 07042012, at about 8.50 am one Gramin Sewa bearing No. DL2W 2015 while coming from Pushpa Bhawan and going towards Sheikh Sarai was carrying passengers. He further deposed that he stopped the offending vehicle and checked and found that the accused was not having route permit. After checking, he found that accused was having permit from Sangam Vihar to Saket. He proved the Vehicle No. DL2W 2015 State V/s. Ram Parkash Page 3 of 7 Challan No. - 207588 challan as Ex.PW3/A and the OSS form as Ex. PW3/B. In his crossexamination, he deposed that he stopped the offending vehicle and he prepared the challan at 8.50 am. He further deposed that there were about 56 passengers in the vehicle. He further deposed that he did not take any photographs. He further deposed that he tried but no public witness joined investigation. He further deposed that he does not know how many seats are there in Gramin Sewa. He further deposed that he does not know how many passengers were seated in the front and the back side. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that there were no passengers in the offending vehicle. He denied the suggestion that the number plate is not defective. He further deposed that he did not take any photographs of the defective number plate. He denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle was illegally challaned.
6. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused Ram Prakash was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. In his statement, accused denied to have committed the offence and admitted that the number plate of the offending vehicle was defective. However, he did not prefer to lead any defence witness.
7. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the accused and also perused the record.
8. In the instant case, the case of the prosecution is that the accused was driving the vehicle without the route permit i.e. route permit of the offending vehicle is from Sangam Vihar to Saket and the accused was plying the vehicle and carrying passengers at BRT corridor, which does not fall on the route of the offending vehicle. Also, the number plate of the offending vehicle was defective. Vehicle No. DL2W 2015 State V/s. Ram Parkash Page 4 of 7 Challan No. - 207588
9. To prove its case, the prosecution has to prove that the offending vehicle violated the conditions of the route permit and was found plying the vehicle on a route other than that specified in the route permit. However, the route permit of the offending vehicle has neither been impounded nor brought on record by the prosecution, so as to prove that the offending vehicle was plying on a route other than that specified in the route permit allotted to the offending vehicle by STA. Mere allegation in the challan that the offending vehicle was on a route other than that specified in the route permitted allotted to him is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. It has to be proved by cogent evidence.
10. In the instant case, the Challaning Officer was examined as PW3 and he has deposed that there about 56 passengers in the vehicle. PW2, Ct. Vipin has deposed that there were total 5 passengers (3 male and 2 female) were inside the vehicle. Whereas, PW3, Ct. Vijay has deposed that 5 passengers (3 female and 2 male) were inside the vehicle. Further, there are many inconsistencies in the testimonies of PWs for instance, PW1 has deposed that they did not inquire about the fare charges, whereas PW2 has deposed that the passengers had taken ticket of Rs. 10/ each and PW3 i.e. Challaning Officer has not deposed single word about the fare charges. PW1 has deposed that the destination of passengers who boarded the bus was not asked by them, whereas PW2 has deposed that the destination of the passengers was Shekh Sarai. Thus, these inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses throws a great deal of doubt about the commission of the offence in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.
11. Further, in this case, no independent witness has been enjoined in the investigation. Vehicle No. DL2W 2015 State V/s. Ram Parkash Page 5 of 7 Challan No. - 207588 PW3 i.e. Challaning Officer has deposed that despite efforts no public witness joined in the investigation whereas, PW1 & PW2 have made no mention of the same. It is settled proposition of law that when independent public persons are available at the spot and they are not joined in the investigation by the investigating agency and unless and until any reasonable and plausible explanation comes from the prosecution as to why the independent public persons were not joined, the case of prosecution should be seen with reasonable circumspection as it would be unsafe to believe the story of the prosecution in absence of the independent public witnesses. In the case of Sanspal Singh, Vs. State of Delhi, 1999 Cr.L.J. 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that non joining of public witnesses would not be fatal to the prosecution in the situation where there were no public witnesses available or none was willing to associate in the investigation but would be fatal only when despite the availability of the public witnesses no one was joined in the investigation.
12. Further it needs to be noted that no site plan was prepared nor any photographs were taken by the prosecution. It seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version given by the aforesaid witnesses and creates a good deal of doubt about the commission of the offence in the manner alleged by the prosecution.
14. Moreover, there is nothing on record to prove the presence of PW1 & PW2 at the relevant time. Even the challan has not been signed by these witnesses .Thus the presence of these witnesses at the alleged time itself is rendered doubtful.
15. All these infirmities casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case and seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version given by the aforesaid witnesses and creates a good deal of doubt about the commission of the offence in the manner Vehicle No. DL2W 2015 State V/s. Ram Parkash Page 6 of 7 Challan No. - 207588 alleged by the prosecution.
16. In the case in hand, the accused has admitted that the number plate of the offending vehicle was defective. The fact does not stands corroborated as the Challaning Officer i.e. PW3 & PW1 have not deposed a single word regarding the same. It is a well settled law that the conviction can not be based nearly on the statement recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. So, if the prosecution evidence does not contain the evidence to sustain conviction, the inculpatory statement of the accused in statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. cannot be made sole basis of conviction. (Relied Mohan V/s. State, 2005 CrLJ, 79 (M.P.)
17. In the result, I find that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he has given the benefit of doubt and therefore accused Ram Prakash is acquitted for the offence punishable U/s 66(1)/192 A & 50/177 of M. V. Act for which he stands charged.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Dated 30082012.
(Preeti Parewa) MM01/Traffic Saket/New Delhi 30082012 Vehicle No. DL2W 2015 State V/s. Ram Parkash Page 7 of 7