Delhi District Court
State vs . Bijender Singh 1/7 on 30 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 179/07
PS : Paschim Vihar
Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC
Date of commission of offence : 26.02.2007
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0259752010
C C No. : 2029/2/10
Bijender Singh
S/o Hukum Chand
R/o 239, Sector-6, Bahadurgarh,
Jhajjar, Haryana
............. Accused
Prem Nath
S/o Lt. Sh. Pyare Lal
R/o S-II, 25 Sawaran Park,
Mundka, Delhi
........... Complainant
Date of Institution : 26.03.2008
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Date reserving for judgment : 14.03.2016
Date of pronouncement : 30.03.2016
Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1.Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/337 IPC.
FIR No. 179/07 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Bijender Singh 1/7
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 26.02.2007 at about 07.15 pm at Peera Garhi Chowk, the accused Bijender Singh was driving car bearing registration no. HR-26V-3877 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life. While driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner, he hit against the complainant Prem Nath and caused simple injuries to him. Thus, the accused Bijender Singh is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC.
FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the statement of the injured FIR bearing number 712/2000 under section 279/337 IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On basis of the charge-sheet, notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 279/337 IPC was served upon the accused Bijender Singh to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
6. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution, that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
(1)That the accident actually took place.
(2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
FIR No. 179/07 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Bijender Singh 2/7 (3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
7. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 6 witnesses, out of which, only five witnesses i.e. (1) Pradeep Kumar (2) Prem Nath (3) HC KUldeep (4) HC Gurdev Lal and (5) J. S. Pawar have been examined.
8. PW-1 Pradeep Kumar is the owner of the WagonR car bearing registration No. HR-26V-3877. He stated that he had got released the car on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW1/A. The photographs of the car are Ex.P1 (colly). During cross examination, he stated that he cannot identify the accused nor he had given his car to him. He voluntarily stated that his father-in-law had taken his car on that day and it was in his custody at the relevant time.
9. PW-2 Prem Nath deposed that on the date of accident, at about 7.30 pm, he was going back home. When he was crossing the road going towards Nangloi suddenly one car came from behind and hit him. He became unconscious and was taken to the hospital by the police. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A when he regained his consciousness. He could not tell the details of the offending vehicle nor could he identify the driver of the said vehicle. The witness was declared to be hostile and was cross examined by the Ld. APP. During cross examination, Ld. APP specifically pointed out the accused and asked the witness whether he was the same person who was driving the offending vehicle but the witness stated that he had not seen the driver of the car as he had become unconscious. He could not tell whether the registration number of the offending car was HR-26V-3877. He denied the suggestion that he had given the FIR No. 179/07 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Bijender Singh 3/7 number of the offending vehicle and name of the accused in his statement Ex.PW2/A. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in the court.
10.PW-3 HC Kuldeep Singh deposed that on 26.02.2007 he alongwith the IO had reached the spot on receiving DD entry no. 36 from PP Mianwali Nagar. On reaching the spot, they found the Maruti WagonR car and the accused Bijender Singh. Injured had already been shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. The IO left him at the spot and proceeded to the hospital. After sometime, IO returned back and prepared rukka and instructed the witness to get FIR registered. He got the FIR registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar and returned back to the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO seized the offending vehicle vide memo Ex.PW3/A. The driving license of the accused was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/D. He identified the photographs of the case property.
11.During cross examination, the witness stated that the accused himself had told them that he was driving the offending vehicle and that the PCR van had taken the injured to the hospital. He could not recall whether the IO had asked the accused about the ownership of the car.
12.PW-4 HC Gurdev Lal had recorded the FIR no.179/07 under Section 279/337 Indian Penal Code on basis of the rukka sent by ASI J. S. Rathi through constable Kuldeep Singh. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW4/A and endorsement on rukka by the witness is Ex.PW4/B.
13.PW-5 J. S. Pawar had mechanically inspected the Maruti WagonR car and his report is Ex.PW5/A. FIR No. 179/07 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Bijender Singh 4/7
14.PW-4 and PW-5 were not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
15.As the sole eye witness Prem Nath has failed to support the prosecution story, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. All the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the accident, sufficient only to prove that the injured had received injuries and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS Paschim Vihar vide FIR bearing No.179/07. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the accident was caused by the accused by driving vehicle bearing number HR-26V-3877, in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/337 IPC.
16.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs". reported as 1996 JCC 507 , that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Accordingly, PE was closed. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was also dispensed with as no incriminating evidence has come on record against him.
17.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
FIR No. 179/07 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Bijender Singh 5/7 "22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts."
18.It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put to an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
19.In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/337 IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused.
FIR No. 179/07 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Bijender Singh 6/7 Final Order
20.Since eye witnesses/injured have failed to support the prosecution story and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under Section 258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Bijender Singh qua offences under Section 279/337 IPC and hereby releases the accused Bijender Singh s/o Sh. Hukum Chand under sections 279/337 IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
21.As per section 437-A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.03.2016 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/30.03.2016 FIR No. 179/07 u/s. 279/337 IPC State Vs. Bijender Singh 7/7