Delhi District Court
State vs Rajender Singh on 6 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS RUCHIKA SINGLA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04, ROOM NO.212
DWARKA, DELHI
State versus Rajender Singh
FIR No. 144/11
PS: Dwarka South
U/s-279/337/338 IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02405R0120442012
2. Date of commission of offence : 06.06.2011
3. Name of the complainant : Smt. Parul w/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
4. Name of the accused, and his : Rajender Singh s/o Sh. Mohan Singh
parentage & residence r/o B-95, Ambedkar Colony, Chhatarpur,
New Delhi
5. Date of Reserving Judgment : 07.04.2014
6. Date when judgment was : 06.06.2014
pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section 279/337/338 IPC
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Order : Conviction
10. Date of Order : 06.06.2014
JUDGMENT
Brief Statement of the reasons for the decision of the case
1. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that on 06.06.2011 at about 02.30 pm at chowk of Sector 10-11, near Pratibha School, Dwarka, the accused was driving a car bearing no. DL2TC 0017 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury and while so driving, he hit against a scooter bearing no. DL3SAF 6231 and caused simple and grievous injuries to Sh. Vinod Kumar and Smt. Parul respectively. Hence, the accused is facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 279/337/338 IPC of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
State v. Rajender Singh FIR no. 144/11 PS Dwarka South Page 1 of 5
2. An FIR was lodged at the behest of Smt. Parul. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 279/337/338 IPC on 22.06.2012. Cognizance was taken and provisions of Section 207, CrPC were complied with. On the basis of prima facie material available on record, a notice under Section 251, CrPC for the offences under Section 279/337/338 IPC was framed against the accused on 30.07.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. PW1 is Dr. Nitin Seth who proved the MLC of Smt. Parul. PW2 Vinod Kumar is one of the injured. PW3 Ct. Ravinder aided the IO in the investigation of the present case. PW4 Puran Chand is the Mechanical Inspector. PW5 Smt. Parul is the second injured and the complainant. PW6 Dr. Amit Mehtani proved the MLC of Sh. Vinod Kumar. PW7 ASI Manjeet is the DO. PW8 SI Dinesh is the IO. PE was closed vide Order dated 11.03.2014. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, CrPC on 22.03.2014 whereby the accused pleaded false implication. The accused did not lead defence evidence. Hence, the same was closed on the same day. Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and the matter was reserved for orders.
3. The Prosecution has alleged that the accused has committed the offences under Section 279/337/338 IPC. Section 279 IPC is as under:-
''Rash driving or riding on a public way- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on an any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend one thousand rupees or with both''.
4. To bring home the charge under Section 279, IPC, the prosecution must prove the following:
a) that the accused was driving a vehicle;
b) he was driving the said vehicle on a public way;
c) he was driving the vehicle in a a rash and negligent manner; and
d) he was driving the vehicle in such a manner so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
5. It is not in dispute that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The same has been accepted by the accused in his statement under Section 313, CrPC. Even otherwise, this fact has been proved on the basis of the testimonies of PW2 Vinod and PW5 State v. Rajender Singh FIR no. 144/11 PS Dwarka South Page 2 of 5 Parul, the eye witnesses and injured, whose testimonies on this point remain unrebutted. Both these witnesses correctly identified the accused to be the driver of the offending vehicle in the court. The second essential is also made out as again this fact is not disputed by the accused and has been admitted in his statement under Section 313, CrPC and has been proved by the unrebutted testimonies of PW2 Vinod and PW5 Parul.
6. Now, most importantly, the prosecution must prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. To prove this fact, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW2 Vinod and PW5 Parul. Both the witnesses deposed in corroboration with each other that on 06.06.2011 at about 02.30 pm at chowk of Sector 10-11, near Pratibha School, Dwarka, the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving, he hit against their scooter due to which they sustained injuries. In view of the same, the Ld. APP has argued that it is crystal clear that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. Ld. APP also relied upon the mechanical inspection reports Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B as well as the MLCs of the injured Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW6/A.
7. The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has argued that this was not the case. He has argued that the accused was driving the vehicle in a normal manner and PW2 Vinod was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the accident occurred. It is submitted that there are material contradictions between the testimonies of PW2 Vinod, PW5 Parul and PW8 SI Dinesh. It is stated that there was no red light at the spot, it was merely a crossing and PW2 Vinod was driving wrongly. Further, as per the mechanical inspection reports Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B, the offending vehicle sustained damage at the right side while the complainant's scooter received damage at the front side. Thus, the accident as alleged by the injured persons could not have taken place.
8. I have perused the record. PW2 Vinod stated in his deposition that the accused hit his scooter on the left side. PW5 Parul stated that the offending vehicle was coming from the front side. The mechanical inspection reports Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B affirm both these facts. The offending vehicle has been damaged from the right side and the scooter has been damaged from the front side. However, in the opinion of this court, both the statements are not contradictory. In State v. Rajender Singh FIR no. 144/11 PS Dwarka South Page 3 of 5 fact, they have to be read harmoniously. From the conjoint statements of the PWs, the scene that emerges is that both the vehicles were coming from opposite directions, hence, the offending vehicle was coming from the front side of the scooter and while so, it hit at the left side of the scooter. Hence, the offending vehicle sustained damage at the right side. It can so happen when the vehicles skidded aside each other while also hitting against each other. What is again relevant is that the factum of accident has not been denied by the accused. He admits this in his statement under Section 313, CrPC. Hence, as such, the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused fails. The only relevant aspect that has to be proved is the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Both PW2 Vinod and PW5 Parul have deposed on oath that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. PW5 Parul further stated that due to the impact of the hit, PW2 Vinod fell at some distance. Perusal of the MLCs of the PWs shows that they had sustained multiple injuries. Both the legs of PW5 Parul were fractured as a result of the accident. This also indicates that the impact of the accident was too great. There may have been minor contradictions in the testimonies of the PWs but the same are not so great to hit the merits of the case. The principle of res ipsa loquitor hence applies in the present case. Hence, the onus shifts upon the accused to prove that the accident did not occur due to his fault. However, the accused has not led any evidence to prove this fact. Hence, he has failed to discharge his onus.
9. Lastly, the prosecution must prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. This is also made out in light of the above discussion. Hence, the prosecution has proved that the accused has committed an offence under Section 279, IPC.
10. Then, the accused is charged for the offence under Section 338, IPC which provides as under:
"Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.-- Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. "
11. For proving the commission of this offence, it must be proved that:
a) the accused must have caused grievous hurt to a person; and
b) the same was caused by a rash and negligent act so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others.
State v. Rajender Singh FIR no. 144/11 PS Dwarka South Page 4 of 5
12. The latter has already been proved in view of the earlier discussion. The prosecution has alleged that the accused caused grievous hurt to PW5 Parul in view of her MLC Ex.PW1/A. It is proved from the testimonies of PW2 Vinod and PW5 Parul that due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, they got injuries. Perusal of MLC Ex.PW1/A shows that the doctor has opined that the injury suffered by her was grievous as she sustained fractures. Fracture is a grievous injury as envisaged in its definition as provided under Section 320, IPC. Hence, it is proved that the accused has committed the said offence.
13. Lastly, the accused has been charged for the offence under Section 337, IPC which provides as under:
"Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.-- Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
14. For proving the commission of this offence, it must be proved that:
a) the accused must have caused hurt to a person; and
b) the same was caused by a rash and negligent act so as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others.
15. As mentioned earlier, the latter has already been proved in view of the earlier discussion. From the MLC Ex.PW6/A of PW2 Vinod, it is apparently clear that he suffered simple injuries due to the said accident. As per the MLC, he suffered cuts, swelling and many abrasions. All these injuries are covered the definition of hurt as provided under Section 319, IPC. Hence, it is proved that the accused has committed the said offence. In light of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved that the accused has committed the offences under Section 279/338/337, IPC. Hence, the accused is convicted for the offences under Section 279/338/337, IPC.
Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.06.2014 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04 DWARKA COURTS, DELHI State v. Rajender Singh FIR no. 144/11 PS Dwarka South Page 5 of 5