Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajesh Kumar on 4 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 218/2003
PS : Paschim Vihar
Offence complained of : 279/304 A IPC
Date of commission of offence : 19.05.2003
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0652362010
C C No. : 2150/2/10
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar
Rajesh Kumar
S/o Sh. Daryav Singh
R/o House no.1441, Saini Mohalla,
Near Health Center Hospital,
Najafgarh, Delhi
............. Accused
HC Azad Singh
No.361/W
PP Mianwali Nagar,
Delhi
............ Complainant
Date of Institution : 27.02.2004
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Date of reserving judgment/ order : 11.05.2015
Date of pronouncement : 04.06.2015
Final Order : Acquitted
FIR No.218/03 u/s. 279/304A
State Vs. Rajesh Kumar 1/ 6
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1.Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case under Section 279/304 A IPC.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 19.05.2003 at about 10.55 pm at Nangloi Road, Opposite Nangloi Depot, South Side Road within the jurisdiction of PS Paschim Vihar the accused Rajesh Kumar was found driving a bus bearing registration no. DL-1PA-5732 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. While driving the said bus in such a manner, he struck against one person namely Sunder Singh and caused his death. Thus, accused Rajesh Kumar is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 279/304A IPC.
FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 218/03 under section 279/304A 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 the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice under section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 279/304A IPC was framed against the accused FIR No.218/03 u/s. 279/304A State Vs. Rajesh Kumar 2/ 6 by the Ld. Predecessor on 13.04.2011, 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. (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 13 witnesses, out of which Mahesh is the sole eye witness.
8. PW-1 Sushil was the registered owner of the bus having registration no. DL-1PA- 5732. He deposed that he was called by the police at PS Paschim Vihar and informed that his bus had met with an accident. He deposed that the accused Rajesh was driving the said bus at the given time. He got released the vehicle on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW1/A. He identified the photographs of the bus as Ex.P1 to P3 and negatives are Ex.P2.
9. During cross examination, PW-1 admitted that he was not present in the bus at the time of the accident. He also admitted that he does not maintain any attendance register regarding the driver of the bus. He had produced the accused on calling by the IO.
10.PW-2 Mahipal Singh had identified the dead body of deceased Sunder Singh at the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital vide his memo Ex.PW2/A. He had received the dead body vide memo Ex.PW2/B after the postmortem. FIR No.218/03 u/s. 279/304A State Vs. Rajesh Kumar 3/ 6
11.The eye witness Mahesh has remained unserved even through DCP concerned. All other remaining witnesses are merely formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the accident, sufficient only to prove that Sunder Singh had expired and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS- Paschim Vihar vide FIR bearing No.218/03.
12. 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 cases 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 the future date".
13.As the eye-witness Mahesh has remained unserved even through DCP concerned, 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. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing number DL-1PA-5732, which was being driven by the accused Rajesh Kumar 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 279/304A IPC. Hence, PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, the recording of statement of accused was also dispensed with.
14.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.218/03 u/s. 279/304A State Vs. Rajesh Kumar 4/ 6 "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."
15.It has been also 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.
16.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 279/304A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused.
FIR No.218/03 u/s. 279/304A State Vs. Rajesh Kumar 5/ 6 Final Order
17.Since the eye-witness has remained unserved 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 Rajesh Kumar qua offences u/s 279/304A IPC and hereby releases the accused Rajesh Kumar under sections 279/304A IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
18.As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.06.2015.
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /04.06.2015 FIR No.218/03 u/s. 279/304A State Vs. Rajesh Kumar 6/ 6