Delhi District Court
State vs Vansh Khandelwal on 8 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI BENIWAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-11, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
FIR No.174/2023
PS Janakpuri
Under Section 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act
State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal
CNR No. : DLSW020466042023
Crl. Case No. : 10684/2023
Date of institution of the case : 25.09.2023
Date of commission of offence : 26.06.2023
Name of the complainant : Smt.Shanta Kaur
W/o Sh.Joginder Singh
Name of accused and address : Vansh Khandelwal
S/o Sh.Pramod Kumar
Khandelwal
R/o RZ-22A, Syndicate
Enclave, Raghu Nagar,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : Under Section 279/338 IPC
and under Section 3/181
MV Act
Ld. APP for the State : Sh.Amit Sehrawat
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
FIR no.174/2023
State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal
Page no.1/9
Final order : Acquittal.
Date of judgment : 08.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The accused has been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 279/338 IPC and under Section 3/181 MV Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 26.06.2023 at about 7 PM on road near Kapoor Tent House, Janakpuri, accused Vansh Khandelwal was found driving a motorcycle bearing registration number DL-8SCB-7416, rashly and negligently in such a manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. That while driving the offending vehicle, he hit a pedestrian, namely, Smt. Shanta Kaur and caused grievous injuries to her, and thereby committed offence punishable under section 279/33 8IPC. It has further been alleged by the prosecution that on the date of accident, he was driving the motorcycle without having a valid driving license and this committed offence punishable under section 3/181 MV Act.
3. Complaint was made and FIR was registered. IO conducted the investigation. After completion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused was summoned to face trial.
FIR no.174/2023State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal Page no.2/9
4. Thereafter, copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. After giving opportunity to state as well as accused for making submissions on charge, a notice for offences u/s 279/338 IPC and under Section 3/181 MV Act was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. It is pertinent to know that victim/complainant Smt.Shanta Kaur expired during the trial and consequently, dropped from the list of witnesses. Thus, the entire case of the prosecution was dependent upon the testimony of the eye witnesses.
6. Prosecution has examined only 3 witnesses to prove its case.
7. Prosecution examined Mansi Chopra as PW1. She was cited as the eye witness of the present case and she deposed that on 26.06.2023, at about 7 PM near C4 E Janakpuri, she saw that victim, Shanta Kaur was taken to the hospital by some unknown persons. She stated that she had not seen the accident and she could not identify the accused person as she had not seen him earlier.
8. The witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for State. During her cross examination, the accused person was shown to her and she failed to identify him. She stated that she runs a boutique by the name of Shown boutique. That at the time of incident, victim, Shanta Kaur was her landlady, and after the incident in question, she had shifted her boutique to some other place. That on the day FIR no.174/2023 State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal Page no.3/9 of incident, she was going to her boutique on her scooty and she saw that victim Shanta Kaur was sitting on an E-Rickshaw and she was taken by a girl and a boy who were unknown to the witness. She admitted that the investigating officer had recorded her statement, which is Ex.PW1/XI. She denied the suggestion that she had stated to the investigating officer that one boy was driving in rash and negligent manner and had hit the victim. She was confronted with her statement, however, she denied the suggestion that she had stated the aforesaid fact to the investigating officer. She denied the suggestion that she has been born over by the accused person and she is trying to protect him from the criminal proceedings.
9. Prosecution examined SI Sumit as PW2. He deposed that on 26.06.2023, upon receiving information vide DD No.146A, he reached at Orchid Hospital, where he found victim Shanta Kaur admitted on MLC No.581/2023. That, after collecting the MLC, the investigating officer had met the victim to record her statement, however, due to extreme pain, her statement was not recorded on the same date and then, investigating officer had recorded statement of the victim on the next date. After recording of the statement, the present FIR was registered. The investigating officer further stated that he had recorded statement of eye witness Mansi Chopra at the police station and she had informed the investigating officer about the details of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the witness/IO had issued notice under section 133, MV act to the owner of the offending vehicle. That the first owner of the vehicle informed that he had sold his bike to one Taposh Mandal in year 2020. Thereafter, the witness FIR no.174/2023 State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal Page no.4/9 had issued another notice to Tapash Mandal, who informed that accused Vansh Khandelwal was driving the motorcycle on the day of incident. The witness further stated that accused Vansh Khandelwal had surrendered the motorcycle in the police station. That the motorcycle was seized by the IO and accused Vansh was formally arrested and was later on released on Police bail. That at the time of incident, accused person was in the possession of learning license. That on 30.06.2023, the mechanical inspection of the motorcycle was conducted by the mechanical inspector. Thereafter, the investigating officer had prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW2/D. Seizure memo of offending motorcycle is Ex.PW2/E. copy of learning licence of accused is Ex.PW2/I. That the documents pertaining to release of the offending vehicle on superdari alongwith the panchanama report and photographs of the offending vehicle are Ex.PW2/R. The accused was present in the court and was correctly identified by the witness.
10. The witness was cross examine at length by Learned Defence Counsel. During his cross examination, he stated that on the day of incident, the victim was found in pain and was not mentally fit to give her statement and therefore, the investigating officer had gone to the hospital on the next day at around 10 AM. That the last four digits of the offending vehicle was told by the victim to the investigating officer, however, the victim could not tell anything about the physical appearance of the accused person. He admitted that the site plan prepared by him does not contain signatures of any witness. He admitted that eye witness Mansi Chopra had not made any telephonic call to him. The witness denied the suggestion that he had never visited the place FIR no.174/2023 State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal Page no.5/9 of incident and had not met any independent witness at the spot, and the site plan was prepared by him sitting at the police station only.
11. Prosecution examined Taposh Mandal as PW3. He deposed that in 2020, he had purchased the vending motorcycle from a person, namely Irrfan Ahmed. That he could not get the motorcycle transport in his name, as the original RC of the motorcycle was deposited in the court. That on 26.07.2023, his son, namely, Shubham had handed over the motorcycle to the accused person. Accuse was present in the court and was correctly identified by the witness. That the photographs of the funding vehicle were shown to the witness and seam were correctly identified by him.
12. Vide separate statement recorded under Section 294 Cr.P.C, accused had admitted the documents i.e. DO/HC Madhubala to prove FIR No.174/2023 Ex.P1, Dr.Ramanik Grover MBBS DMC No.1293 from Orchid Hospital to prove MLC No.581/2023 alongwith final result Ex.P2, Sh.Chander Prakash MVI to prove inspection report of vehicle no.DL8SC7416 Ex.P3 and Sh.Irfan Ahmad to prove superdari documents Ex.P4. Hence the above document was ordered to be read in evidence without its formal proof.
13. PE was closed by order of this court and thereafter, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he has refused the allegations levelled against him in toto. He further stated that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. That FIR no.174/2023 State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal Page no.6/9 he was not riding the aforementioned motorcycle. That the motorcycle belonged to his friend Shubham. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
14. Final arguments were heard from both side.
15. I have considered the rival submissions made by Ld.APP for the State as well as Ld.Defence Counsel.
16. As can be seen from the prosecution evidence, the entire prosecution case rested solely on the testimony of the complainant and eyewitness Mansi Chopra. Victim/complainant expired during the trial and witness Mansi Chopra has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. She has failed to identify the accused person. Not just that she has denied witnessing the accident. She was cross examined at length by Ld.APP for the State but nothing could be extracted from her testimony. Other than this witness, there is no other witness who could have deposed about the incident in question. Upon her, turning hostile, there is no other witness who might have noticed the accused driving the offending motorcycle in fast or negligent manner. There is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that it was due to rush or negligent, driving of accused person that victim/complainant sustained grievous injuries. So far as the testimony of other prosecution witnesses is concerned, they have nothing material to depose about the case, except of the facts concerning the other facets of the investigation after the incident. Notwithstanding the fact that the accused was the driver of the offending vehicle on the given date of incident, still, the FIR no.174/2023 State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal Page no.7/9 prosecution falls way short in establishing that, it was the driving of the accused of the offending vehicle and that too in rash and negligent manner, which resulted in injuries to the complainant.
17. It has to be understood that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt, by leading positive evidence. This burden never shifts upon the accused to establish his innocence. On account of the hostility of the eyewitness of the incident, the prosecution case has suffered a fatal blow which goes to the root of the matter.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, prosecution has failed to lead even an iota of evidence to prove the charges against the accused much less, to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. It has already been stated by the investigating officer in his evidence that the accused had temporary driving license at the time of commission of a fence and same was seized by the investigating officer. I have perused the seizure memo as well as the temporary driving license, and it appears that it was valid at the time when the incident in question took place. Accused Vansh Khandelwal is thus acquitted of the charges u/s 279/338 IPC and section 3/181 MV Act.
19. Accused be set at liberty.
FIR no.174/2023State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal Page no.8/9 Pronounced in open Court on this 8th of April, 2024. This judgment consists of 9 signed pages.
Digitally BHARTI signed by BENIWAL BHARTI BENIWAL BHARTI BENIWAL Metropolitan Magistrate-11, South West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 08.04.2023 FIR no.174/2023 State Vs. Vansh Khandelwal Page no.9/9