Delhi District Court
State vs Gur Iqbal Singh on 12 October, 2023
FIR No.91/2018 (State vs. Gur Iqbal Singh) PS Tughlak Road
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT,
NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Ms. Isha Singh, DJS
-:
18181/2018
Cr. Case No.
Unique Case ID -: DLND020179582018
No.
FIR No. -: 91/2018
Police Station -: TUGHLAK ROAD
Section(s) -: 279 IPC
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
GUR IQBAL SINGH
S/o Manna Singh, .... Accused
1. Name of Complainant : Vaibhav Jain
2. Name of Accused : Gur Iqbal Singh
Offence complained of or
3. : 279 IPC
proved
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of registration of FIR : 22.09.2018
6. Date of Filing of chargesheet : 29.11.2018
7. Date of Reserving Order : 22.09.2023
8. Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2023
9. Final Order : ACQUITTED
Page 1 of 7
FIR No.91/2018 (State vs. Gur Iqbal Singh) PS Tughlak Road
Argued by -: Sh. Ankit Srivastava, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Varun Ahuja, Ld. Counsel for accused.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
A. FACTUAL MATRIX:-
1. Briefly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2018 at about 01:30 AM, at Q-Point, APJ Abdul Kalam Road, within the jurisdic-
tion of PS Tughlak Road, accused Gur Iqbal Singh was found driving the offending vehicle (Skoda) bearing no. DL-1CP-4420, in a rash and negli- gent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others, hereby committing offence under Sec. 279, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter "IPC").
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, charge- sheet against the accused was filed u/s 279 IPC. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of charge-sheet was supplied to the ac- cused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC"). On finding a prima facie case against the ac- cused, notice under sections 279 IPC was served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Page 2 of 7FIR No.91/2018 (State vs. Gur Iqbal Singh) PS Tughlak Road
4. In his statement recorded under Sec. 294 CrPC, the accused admit- ted the genuineness of the documents including the DD no. 20A dated 22.09.2018, PS Tughlak Road; FIR no. 91/2018, PS Tughlak Road; Cer- tificate under Sec. 65B, IEA supporting the FIR; GD no. 3A dated 21.09.2018 PS Tughlak Road; and mechanical inspection report of both the offending as well as offended vehicles dated 25.09.2018.
5. Firstly, PW1/Complainant Sh.Vaibhav Jain entered the witness box and in his examination, he stated on 21.09.2018 at about 01:30 AM, his motorcycle bearing no. MH 12LU 6982 was hit by an unknown vehi- cle at Taj Man Singh hotel circle, New Delhi. He refused to testify any further to support the prosecution. Since the witness was resiling from his earlier statement given to the police, Ld. APP for the State sought permis- sion to cross-examine the witness, which was allowed and attention of the complainant was drawn towards his complaint Ex.PW-1/A. Upon being confronted with his complaint Ex. PW1/A, the witness stated that al- though the complaint is in his handwriting, however he does not remem- ber the contents of the same, due to lapse of time. During his cross-exami- nation by the Ld. APP, he denied the suggestion that his motorcycle bear- ing no. MH 12LU 6982 was hit by car (make Skoda, black colour) bear- ing registration no. DL 1CT 4420 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said car. He also denied the suggestion that the number plate of the offending vehicle was broken due to the impact and the same fell down on the road. He even denied the suggestion that he had made a call to 100 number and in pursuance thereto, PCR came at the spot. He Page 3 of 7 FIR No.91/2018 (State vs. Gur Iqbal Singh) PS Tughlak Road also denied the suggestion that he had a conversation with IO/ASI Gopal Lal, who informed to him that the offending vehicle was being driven by accused Gur Iqbal Singh and was also registered in his name. Upon such denial, he was confronted with his complaint (Ex. PW1/A) as well as his statement under Sec. 161 CrPC (mark X1), wherein all the abovemen- tioned facts were recorded. Upon being so confronted with his statement under Sec. 161 CrPC (mark X1), the witness stated that the statement was not in his handwriting and he denied giving any such statement to the po- lice. Further, the witness failed to identify the accused Gur Iqbal Singh as driver of the offending vehicle. He even failed to identify the photographs of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL 1CT 4420[Ex. P1 (Colly)].
No cross-examination of PW1/Complainant Sh.Vaibhav Jain wade conducted despite opportunity being granted to the accused.
6. Further, summons were issued to IO/ASI Gopal Lal which were re- ceived back with copy of his death certificate. Accordingly, IO/ASI Gopal Lal was dropped from the list of witnesses. At this point, it is perti- nent to note the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govind and Others. v. State, 104 (2003) DLT 510, where it was held that:
"In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in con- viction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceed- ings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date..."Page 4 of 7
FIR No.91/2018 (State vs. Gur Iqbal Singh) PS Tughlak Road
7. Since the complainant had already turned hostile and IO/ASI Gopal Lal was dropped from the list of witnesses on account of his demise, therefore at the request of the Ld. APP for State, PE was closed on 22.09.2023, in view of the aforesaid pronouncement.
8. As nothing incriminating came on record against the accused per- son, the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC was dispensed with. The accused stated that he did not wish to lead any defence evi- dence and accordingly, final arguments were heard.
9. During final arguments, it was argued by Ld. APP for the State, that the case against the accused stood proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of the evidences relied upon by the prosecution and the accused de- served to be convicted.
10. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution had miserably failed to bring out a case against the accused and accused is liable to be acquitted.
11. The PW1/complainant has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witnesses is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable in India. With re- spect to the evidentiary value of hostile witnesses, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under -
Page 5 of 7FIR No.91/2018 (State vs. Gur Iqbal Singh) PS Tughlak Road "25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such wit-
nesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the ex- tent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
12. Therefore, it has to be seen if the evidence of such hostile witnesses can be relied in part. In the present case, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to help the prosecution. PW1/complainant has failed to identify both, the offending vehicle and the accused as driver of the of- fending vehicle, and in view of his hostile testimony, there is nothing to prove the identity of the accused person as driver of the offending vehicle. He has denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. No other independent eyewitness of the incident has been cited by the prosecution. There is no other circumstance or clinching piece of evidence such as CCTV footage, mentioned in the chargesheet, that points towards the guilt of the accused. Therefore, there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Even if all the other prosecution witnesses were to be examined, the case of the prosecution could not have been proved.
13. Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witness is considered partly, there is nothing to implicate the accused Gur Iqbal. As such, none of the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 279 IPC stands fulfilled in the present case qua the accused Gur Iqbal.
Page 6 of 7FIR No.91/2018 (State vs. Gur Iqbal Singh) PS Tughlak Road
14. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence beyond rea- sonable doubt. The star witnesses of the prosecution i.e., PW1/ com- plainant has turned hostile. There is no evidence to link the accused with the crime charged against him. The ingredients of the offence are not ful- filled from the material on record.
15. Resultantly, the accused namely Gur Iqbal S/o Manna Singh is hereby found not guilty. He is hereby ACQUITTED of the offence under Section 279 IPC. Accordingly, file be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open court on 12.10.2023 in presence of the ac-
cused.
This judgement contains 7 pages, and each page has been signed by the undersigned.
(Isha Singh) MM-03/PHC/ND/12.10.2023 Page 7 of 7