Delhi District Court
State vs . Surinder Singh on 29 November, 2014
FIR No. 683/06
U/s 279/304 A IPC
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs. Surinder Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH VIPLAV DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04 (NORTH WEST)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Case ID:- 02404R0212102007
FIR No. 683/06
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 279/304 A IPC
State Vs. Surinder Singh
Date of Institution of case : 26.04.2007
Date of Judgment : 29.11.2014
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 30.10.2006 b) Offence complained of : U/s 279/304 A IPC c) Name of Accused, his : Surinder Singh, parentage & residence S/o Sh.Giyan Singh R/o H.No. C4/59 B Keshav Puram, Delhi d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted 1/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh
Brief facts & reasons for the decision of the case:-
1) That on 30.10.2006, at about 1:35 p.m, at Road No. 37, Shanti Nagar Red Light, Delhi accused Surinder Singh was found driving the Maruti Van bearing registration no. DL 1T 3249 in a manner so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicle in aforesaid manner accused hit it against on pedestrian causing his death.
After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offence U/Sec 279/304-A IPC was prepared against the accused.
2) The aforesaid chargesheet was filed before the court on 26.04.2007 whereupon the cognizance of the offence u/s 279/304A IPC was taken. Thereafter, provision of section 207 Cr.PC was complied.
3) After hearing the arguments, notice u/s 279/304-A IPC was framed against the accused Surinder Singh to which the accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial. Accordingly, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4) In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 279 & 304-A IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Sections:
a. Section 279: The accused was driving the vehicle in a public 2/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh place and that he was driving in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt/injury to any other person.
b. Section 304-A: The death of a person is caused by rash or negligent act of accused, that the death of the victim was a direct result of rash or negligent act of accused which must be sufficient cause of death without the intervention of another act and that the act causing death does not amount to culpable homicide.
5) During the course of the trial, prosecution examined eleven witnesses to substantiate the accusations levelled against the accused.
6) PW-1 ASI Tej Pal No. 233, third battalion Vikas Puri proved the registration of FIR in the present case which was recorded by him in his own handwriting. The carbon copy of the same is exhibited as Ex.
PW-1/A and endorsement is Ex. PW-1/B During the cross examination the witness deposed that he had not entered the departure or arrival entry in the Roznamcha of ASI Johar Singh and HC Narender and voluntarily stated that both officials were working at Police Post Shanti Nagar. The witness further deposed that HC Narender remained with him for half an hour and denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
The aforesaid testimony shows that this witness is not an eye witness to prove the existence of any sort of rashness or negligence on part of the accused which is necessary to attract criminal liability 3/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh u/s 279 & 304 A IPC.
7) PW-2 HC Narender No. 912/RB deposed that on 30.10.2006 upon receiving information he alongwith IO ASI Johar Singh and Constable Surinder reached at the spot where they found one person who was injured lying on the road, that Van bearing registration no. DL 1T 3249 and the accused Surinder who is present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness) was also found there and that IO sent the injured with Constable Surinder to BJRM Hospital. PW-2 HC Narender further deposed that IO recorded the statement of one eye witness Ganesh who was also found there and that IO left for BJRM Hospital after giving custody of accused and offending vehicle to him and returned back after sometime. PW-2 HC Narender further deposed that rukka was handed over to him for registration of FIR and after getting the FIR registered he returned at the spot and gave the carbon copy of FIR and rukka to the IO, that accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW-2/A & that Maruti Van & driving licence of accused were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C respectively.
During the cross examination the witness deposed that he had not made departure entry and that public persons were gathered there at the spot. The witness denied the suggestion that Ganesh was the relative of injured and that Ganesh was not present on the spot. The witness further deposed that he signed about 4-5 papers, that document Ex. PW-2/C does not bear signature of any public person, that seizure memo of Maruti Van and personal search memo of 4/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh accused does not bear signature of independent public witnesses, that there were some skid mark of tyre on the road, that there is no skid mark drawn in the site plan and that road of accident was a busy road. The witness denied the suggestion that a vehicle can never cross the speed of 20-30 Km at the spot as the same is a busy road, that all the memos were signed at the police station, that he has not joined the investigation and offending vehicle was not recovered and that neither accused was arrested nor his personal search was conducted by him.
The aforesaid testimony shows that this witness is not an eye witness to prove the existence of any sort of rashness or negligence on part of the accused which is necessary to attract criminal liability u/s 279 & 304 A IPC.
8) PW-3 Sh. Ramesh Kumar, S/o Sh. Laxman Prasad proved the identification memo of the dead body exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signature at point A. The testimony of this witness has gone unrebutted as this witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
9) PW-4 Sh. Harbans Singh, S/o Sh.Gain Singh deposed that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle, that he had employed one Nand Bahadur as driver who had taken the same from his house on 30.10.200, that he had taken the offending vehicle on superdari after furnishing the superdarinama Ex.PW-4/A bearing his signature at point A and that he has brought the aforesaid Maruti Van in the Court parked in the Court parking. The Maruti Van was exhibited as Ex. P-1.
5/15 FIR No. 683/06U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh Ld. APP for the State was permitted to cross examine the witness and the witness deposed that Nand Bahadur is not his regular employee, that Nand Bahadur is a driver who used to remain present at Taxi Stand, that on 30.10.2006 the aforesaid Maruti Van was parked in taxi stand and from there Nand Bahadur took the taxi, that Nand Bahadur did not take the Maruti Van from taxi sand in his presence, that he was not present at the spot at the time of accident and denied that he is deposing falsely to save his brother.
During cross examination on behalf of accused the witness deposed that police did not record his statement and that he did not read the document on which his signature was obtained. It is apparent from the testimony of this witness that his statement recorded by police was not voluntary statement and the same was not read over to him. The aforesaid testimony further shows that this witness is not an eye witness to prove the existence of any sort of rashness or negligence on part of the accused which is necessary to attract criminal liability u/s 279 & 304 A IPC.
10) PW-5 Sh. Ganesh, S/o Sh.Guruswami deposed that he was working as gardener with a contractor near his house, that at the noon time he was present near Canal Keshav Puram and heard some noise of accident and saw that several public persons were gathered at red light Wazirpur JJ Colony, Tri Nagar, that he immediately rushed to the spot and saw that one person was lying on the road, that he along with police official took the injured person to the hospital in Jahangirpuri and that he does not know the accused present before the court today.
6/15 FIR No. 683/06U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh PW-5 Sh. Ganesh further deposed that the police official inquired from him and obtained his thumb impression on one paper. During the recording of examination in chief, the document marked as Mark A was shown to the witness and the witness could not identify his thumb impression on the said document.
Ld. APP for the state was permitted to cross examine the witness as the witness was not supporting the prosecution. The witness denied the suggestion that he saw a Maruti Car bearing no. DL 1T 3249 being driven rashly or negligently and it hit one pedestrian, that he gave statement marked as Mark A to the police and put his thumb impression on the same at point X, that the police official read over his statement to him before obtaining his thumb impression that he had witnessed the accident and that accused Surinder present today in the Court was apprehended by him with the help of other person at the spot after the accident, that accused was arrested in his presence and that accused present in the Court is the same person who had caused the accident by driving the Maruti Van.
The personal search memo was shown to the witness and the witness submitted that he can not admit or deny as to whether the thumb impression appearing on the same was his thumb impression or not. This witness admitted during cross examination conducted by Ld. APP for the State that he did not see the accused at the spot when he reached there after hearing the noise and that he did not notice any Maruti Van stationed at the spot. This witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
Perusal of aforesaid testimony reveals that the prosecution has 7/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh cited him as an eye witness but this witness has not himself seen the accident and that the said witness did not support the prosecution who failed to extract any material from this witness despite cross examination as is apparent from his testimony to the effect that he did not see the accused at the spot when he reached there after hearing the noise, that he did not notice any Maruti Van stationed at the spot and that it is wrong to suggest that he had witnessed the accident. Thus, it follows that there is no eye witness of the incident to prove that the accident and consequent death of victim occurred due to any sort of rashness or negligence on part of the accused presence of which is necessary for fastening liability on the accused for offences punishable u/s 279 & 304 A IPC.
11) PW-6 HC Hakam Singh No. 980/OD PS Begampur proved the DD NO. 16 which was recorded by him in the DD register. The copy of the DD entry is exhibited as Ex. PW-6/ A. The testimony of this witness has gone unrebutted as this witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
12) PW-7 HC Surender Singh No. 1304/NW deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW-2 HC Narender Singh during his examination in chief.
During the cross examination the witness deposed that he reached at the spot on 30.10.2006 at about 2:05 p.m, that he did not make any departure entry while leaving the chowki on receipt of call, that spot was a busy place and there used to remain normal traffic of 8/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh vehicles, that accident did not take place in his presence, that one person namely Ganesh informed IO that the aforesaid Maruti Van hit a pedestrian & that he does not know whether the IO recorded the statement of any other person except Ganesh. The witness denied the suggestion that he does not know this fact because he did not visit the spot alongwith the IO, that he had seen the accused first time in the police station, that injured was not present at the spot when he reached there on receipt of call, that he did not take injured to the hospital form the spot on the direction of the IO and that he did not join the investigation of this case with IO ASI Johar Singh. The aforesaid testimony shows that this witness is not an eye witness to prove the existence of any sort of rashness or negligence on part of the accused which is necessary to attract criminal liability u/s 279 & 304 A IPC.
13) PW-8 Sh. Dhani Ram, S/o Sh. Ram Rattan proved the dead body identification memo exhibited as Ex. PW-8/A bearing his signature at point A and further deposed that he received the dead body of his brother vide receipt Ex. PW-8/B bearing his signature at point A. During the cross examination the witness deposed that he does not remember when his statement was recorded by the IO, that his statement was recorded by the IO at the police station and that he does not remember how many document have been signed by him on the said date.
The aforesaid testimony shows that this witness is not an eye witness to prove the existence of any sort of rashness or negligence 9/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh on part of the accused which is necessary to attract criminal liability u/s 279 & 304 A IPC.
14) PW-9 Retired ASI/Technical Sh. Devender Kumar deposed that he conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle i.e Maruti Van Taxi bearing registration no. DL 1T 3249 on the request of IO ASI Johar Singh and he proved his detailed mechanical inspection report Ex. PW-9/A bearing his signature at point A. During the cross examination the witness deposed that he does not know whether his statement was recorded by the IO or not and that damages found on the front portion of the vehicle which were mentioned in his report in the portion A1 to A2 could be possibly caused due to the collision of the vehicle with a person. The witness denied the suggestion that there was no dent on the front body of the vehicle and he had mentioned it at the instance of the IO. The witness denied the suggestion that he has not brought the documentary proof as to whether he has undergone any course / training and that he has given the report at the instance of IO.
15) PW-10 Dr.Bhim Singh Incharge Mortuary, BJRM Hospital identified the signature and handwriting of Dr.Ashish Jain at point A on the postmortem report exhibited as Ex. PW-10/A who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and has now left services of the hospital. During the cross examination the witness deposed that he is not the author of the postmortem report nor the same was prepared in his presence, that he had joined the BJRM Hospital in the year 2006 and 10/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh by that time Dr. Ashish Jain had left the hospital, that there is overwriting on the date of the encircled portion A on the postmortem report Ex. PW-10/A, that the duration of the injuries are not mentioned in the postmortem report and denied the suggestion that as per the notification issued by Delhi Admn.,the facility to conduct postmortem examination is not available in BJRM Hospital.
16) PW-11 SI Johar Singh No. 4781 D, Posted at Security R.P.Bhawan deposed that on 30.10.2006, he was posted at PP Shanti Nagar in PS Keshav Puram as ASI, that on receiving the DD no. 16 already Ex. PW6/A, he reached the spot i.e. at Red Light Shanti Nagar near Kanhaiya Nagar Metro Station, Delhi along with HC Narender and Ct. Surender Singh where they found that an accident had occurred and also found injured namely Mani Ram there, that he also found one Taxi i.e. Maruti Van bearing no. DL-1T 3249 in an accidental condition stationed there, that they also found one eye witness namely Ganesh at the spot who made statement Ex. PW11/A which was attested by him at point B, that the injured was shifted to BJRM Hospital by Ct. Surender and thereafter he left HC Narender at the spot and went BJRM Hospital where he collected the MLC of injured from the concerned doctor wherein the doctor declared the injured brought dead, that he made a request/application for preserving the dead body in the mortuary and directed Ct. Surender to remain there for looking after and that thereafter, he returned back to the spot and prepared rukka Ex. PW11/B bearing his signature at point A and got the FIR recorded through HC Narender. PW-11 SI Johar Singh further deposed 11/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh that after some time HC Narender returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him, that he prepared the site plan at the instance of eye witness which is Ex. PW11/C bearing his signature at point A and that he also seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo already Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point B, that he arrested the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo already Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point B and Ex. PW11/D bearing his signature at point A, that he also seized the Driving licence of the accused vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-2/C bearing his signature at point B, that on 31.10.2*006, the dead body of the deceased was identified by Dhani Ram and Ramesh Kumar vide their statements Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW3/A respectively bearing his signatures at point B respectively, that he recorded the statements of relevant witnesses and that on 31.10.2006, the postmortem on the dead body of deceased was got conducted and after postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives vide handing over memo already Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at point B. The PW-11 SI Johar Singh further deposed that offending vehicle was got mechanically inspec*ted upon his written application Ex. PW11/E bearing his signature at point A and that he recorded the statements of relevant witnesses.
During the cross examination the witness denied the suggestion that there was heavy volume of traffic at the spot where the incident took place, that eye witness Ganesh was the relative of deceased and that eye witness/complainant Ganesh never m*et at the spot. The witness further deposed that he sent HC Narender for the registration 12/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh of the case at about 4.45 pm and he returned at the spot after getting the case registered at about 5.30 pm, that he does not remember the time when he finally left the spot and that he does not remember whether there was skid marks on the road/at the spot. The witness denied the suggestion that accused was not driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time rather it was being driven by one Nepali citizen, that the alleged place of occurrence was a very busy road and one cannot drive his vehicle above the speed of 30/40 kmph, that all the writing work was done while sitting at the PS, that accused was called at PS in the evening and he was arrested there, that he is deposing falsely and that he has not conducted the investigation properly.
The aforesaid testimony shows that this witness is not an eye witness to prove the existence of any sort of rashness or negligence on part of the accused which is necessary to attract criminal liability u/s 279 & 304 A IPC.
17) Thereafter, Prosecution Evidence was closed on 26.11.2014 by this Court and matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused.
18) On the day fixed for recording of statement of accused, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the Ld. Counsel for accused that the complainant/ star witness is not supporting the prosecution and resiling from his statement recorded earlier, that no material could be extracted from the cross examination of the aforesaid witness and that the witness has turned hostile in toto. It is submitted that there is no 13/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh other eye witness of the incident and there is no circumstance available on record to prove that accused was rash or negligent in his conduct which led to the death of the victim. It is submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by recording the statement of accused as no incriminating material is available on record as the only eye witness has not supported the prosecution version and the remaining witnesses who are all police witnesses or are formal in nature do not say anything about the presence of rash or negligent conduct on part of the accused which is necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused. It is submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that no incriminating material is available on record as the only eye witness has not supported the prosecution version and the remaining witnesses are merely corroborative in nature whose testimony is based upon the deposition of the eye witness.
19) Submission heard on behalf of State and defence. Record perused.
20) Perusal of the record reveals that submissions of the Ld. Counsel for accused are not baseless. Considering the record, the fact that the only eye witness/star witness is not supporting the prosecution and is resiling from his statement recorded earlier regarding the fact of his being eyewitness to the accident, that there is no other eye witness of the incident to establish the element of rashness or negligence in the conduct of accused or any act / omission committed by accused resulting into the death of the victim which is a necessary element for 14/15 FIR No. 683/06 U/s 279/304 A IPC PS Keshav Puram State Vs. Surinder Singh completion of offences u/s 279 & 304 A IPC and that merely causing road accident and consequent death of the victim is not sufficient to fasten liability u/s 279 & 304 A IPC, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served by recording of statement of accused as there is no substantially incriminating circumstance available on record and hence the same is dispensed with.
In view of aforesaid discussion and present circumstances, as no substantially incriminating material is available on record, accused Surinder Singh, S/o Sh.Gyan Singh is hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 279 IPC and u/s 304 A IPC levelled against him.
Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS)
today i.e on 29.11.2014 MM/NORTH WEST-04):DELHI
29.11.2014
15/15