Delhi District Court
State vs Sardar Joginder Singh on 15 April, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, CENTEAL, ROOM NO. 137,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
SARDAR JOGINDER SINGH
FIR No. 346/01
P.S.: KOTWALI
U/S: 279/338/304A IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02401R0144072002
2. Date of commission of offence : 10.06.2001
3. Name of the Complainant : Constable Ishwar Singh,
No. 917/N, PS Kotwali, Delhi.
4. Name of the accused, and
his parentage and residence : Sardar Joginder Singh
S/o Sardar Hari Singh,
R/o WZ483, Gali No. 25, Shiv
Nagar, Jail Road, Delhi.
5. Date when judgment : 15.04.2014
was reserved
6. Date when Judgment : 15.04.2014
was pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section 279/338/304A IPC
or proved
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Judgment : Convicted for the offence U/s
279/338/304A IPC
FIR No. 346/01
PS- Kotwali
State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 1/19
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2001 at about 7.00 am in the area of Chhata Rail Chowk within the jurisdiction of PS Kotwali, accused was driving bus bearing registration No. DL 1P 6103 under DTC operation on public way in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and personal safety of others and hit against TSR bearing No. DL 1RD 2987 resulting in death of driver of TSR and grievous injuries to Passenger Varun Kumar. Accordingly, FIR No. 346/01, PS Kotwali U/s 279/338/304A IPC was registered. The challan was filed on 11.01.2002.
2. On appearance of the accused, a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C was served upon him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for offence under Section 279/338/304A IPC. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
3. Prosecution has examined twenty witnesses namely PW1 Ct Ishwar Singh, PW2 Ct Bikramjeet Singh, PW3 HC Ram Avatar, PW4 T.U Siddique, PW5 HC Ajay Pal, PW6 Devi Prasad, PW7 HC Dharamvir, PW8 Ahmad Majid, PW9 Ct Ajay Kumar, PW10 ASI Raj Singh, PW11 Dr. Girish Prabhat, PW12 Ratna Kapoor, PW13 Varun Kapoor, PW14 Ct Manoj Kumar, PW15 Dharam Pal, PW16 Dr. B.K Sharma, PW17 HC Virender Kumar, PW18 Retd ATI Ramesh Chand, PW19 SI Dharam Chand and PW20 Dr Deepak Vats to prove the case of the prosecution. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places.
FIR No. 346/01
PS- Kotwali
State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 2/19
4. After the Prosecution evidence was closed the statement of accused was recorded and all the incriminating evidence were put to him where he stated that he was driving the offending vehicle on the said date and time but was not present at the spot and no accident committed by him. He further stated that FIR was registered on false allegations and he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further stated that he wish to led evidence in his defence. Thereafter, matter was adjourned for defence evidence.
4.1 Accused has examined only one witness in his defence namely DW1 Dharambir Singh. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
5. Ld APP for the State addressed useful and pertinent arguments. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the offence against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubts as he admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle. He further submits that the eye witness i.e PW1 who is also the complainant has correctly identified the accused as the person who was driving the offending bus and hit the TSR. He prays for conviction of the accused.
6. On the other hand, Ld counsel for the accused argued that that accused was not arrested from the spot and no TIP of accused was conducted. He further submits that all the witnesses were planted and no accident took place and accused was falsely implicated. He prays for the acquittal.
7. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
7.1 PW1 is the eye witness of accident as well as complainant. He stated that on 10.06.2001 at about 7 to 7.15 AM while he was on FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 3/19 duty at police picket Chatta Rail Chowk, he saw one bus bearing No. DL 1P 6103 coming from side of Red Fort and going towards ISBT side and a TSR bearing No. DL 1RD 2987coming from Railway station side and going to Red Fort and the bus was being driven at fast speed eventhough yellow light was blinking and while both were crossing the Chatta rail chowk, bus hit the TSR from its left side and due to collision TSR turned turtle. He further stated that the TSR driver whose name was revealed as Radhey Shyam died at the spot and the passenger sitting in the TSR became unconscious due to injuries and the bus ran away from the spot after accident. He specifically stated that the offending bus was being driver by a Sikh driver whom he saw at the time of accident and the accident tool place due to negligence of the bus driver. He proved his complaint vide Ex. PW1/A as well as stated about the preparation of site plan Ex. PW1/F at his instance. He also stated about seizure of the offending vehicle and TSR vide Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C and arrest and personal search of accused vide Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/F. During cross examination, PW1 stated that he was standing inside the picket and did not receive any call during whole duty. He further stated that the round was at a distance of 50 paces and denied the suggestion that he was sleeping in the picket at the time of accident.
He stated that there was a single passenger and the driver in the TSR. He denied the suggestion that the TSR took dangerous Uturn in order to save himself from the passing vehicle. He further stated that after the accident, he diverted the passing traffic from the scene of FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 4/19 accident and did not ask any public person to remain at the spot who was eyewitness of the accident. He stated that he had signed some documents including his statement, arrest memo, personal search memo and do not remember about other documents and denied the suggestion that somebody forged his signatures on personal search and seizure memo of the bus. He stated that he do not remember whether he has signed on site plan but denied the suggestion that site plan was not prepared in his presence. He also stated that his statement was recorded at the spot and HC Avatar alongwith other persons were present but he fail to recollect the name of other persons. He stated that TSR was at normal speed and bus was at high speed but fail to tell the exact speed of TSR and bus and denied the suggestion that the accident occurred with other bus and not with the bus in question. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the driver at the time of accident and TSR was not damaged due to the accident. He also denied denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot and had not seen the accident and is deposing falsely.
7.2 PW2 stated that on 10.06.2001 on receipt of accident call, he alongwith IO ASI Dharam Chand reached the spot i.e Chatta Rail chowk where HC Ram Avtar and Ct Ishwar Singh met and also saw one TSR bearing No. DL 1RD 2987 over turned at the crossing and one dead body, one suitcase and two bags lying there and injured was already shifted to hospital. He further stated that the accident was caused by bus bearing No. DL 1P 6103 but the bus was not found at FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 5/19 the spot as same ran away from the spot after the accident. He further stated that HC Avtar apprehended the bus and brought it at the spot and thereafter IO recorded statement of Ct Ishwar and prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through him. 7.3 PW3 stated that on 10.06.2001 on receipt of accident call, he reached the spot i.e Chatta Rail chowk where he saw one TSR bearing No. DL 1RD 2987 over turned at the crossing and one dead body, one VIP suitcase and two bags lying there and Ct Ishwar met him. He further stated that IO ASI Dharam Singh also reached the spot and on receipt of intimation that the offending bus has been apprehended, IO sent him to Mori Gate to bring the bus at the spot. He proved the personal search of deceased vide Ex. PW3/A and seizure of goods lying at the spot vide Ex. PW3/B and also seized the challan slip of driving license vide Ex. PW3/C. He stated his presence at the time of arrest and personal search of accused and seizure memo of bus and TSR. During cross examination he stated that he remained at the spot for two hours and during that time, went to Mori Gate to bring the bus and driver at the spot. He denied the suggestion that some other person signed as witness in Ex. PW1/C at point C. He also denied the suggestion that he did not joined the investigation at the spot and signed all memos at the police station. 7.4 PW4 is the mechanical inspector who proved his detailed report vide Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B. During cross examination he stated that he do not remember the colour of the vehicle and the contents of the report and remained at the spot for about ½ hour. As per the FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 6/19 mechanical inspection report of offending vehicle, the left side rear body panel found fresh damages and left side aluminum bending found broken and is found OK and fit for road test. Front glasses of TSR was broken, front body panel was badly damaged/dented, central body panel damaged, ring pillar damaged, ring cloth damaged and TSR was not fit for road test after accident. The damages corroborates the version of the complainant regarding the position of vehicle involved in the accident.
7.5 PW5 is the PCR official of Sugar5 who reached the spot after receipt of information regarding accident at Chatta Rail Chowk and found one TSR No. DL 1RD 2986 in turtled condition and passenger sitting in the TSR was unconscious and the driver was found dead on the spot. He further stated that he shifted the injured to Trauma center in PCR van. During cross examination he stated that only one passenger was in the TSR and only took the injured to hospital. He failed to recollect whether IO recorded his statement or not and stated that no other witness was examined in his presence by the IO. 7.6 PW7 proved the registration of FIR vide Ex. PW7/A and endorsement on the same vide Ex. PW7/B. 7.7 PW8 is the supardar of TSR bearing No. DL 1RD 2987 who got released the vehicle on supardari vide Ex. PW8/A. During cross examination he stated that he had given the vehicle to Ram Avtar who was driving the TSR 20 days prior to accident. He specifically stated that name of driver of TSR was Ram Avatar and not Radhey Shyam.
FIR No. 346/01
PS- Kotwali
State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 7/19
7.8 PW9 proved the photographs of the spot of accident and stated
that he was called by IO ASI Dharam Chand and he took photographs Ex. PW9/A to PW9/E and negatives Ex.P1 to P5.
7.9 PW10 is the PCR official and stated that on 10.06.2001 he was present at PCR van Sugar 21 I/C Van and on receiving message regarding accident by bus No. DL 1P 6103 Route No. 753 at Chhatta Rail Chowk which ran away from the spot and went towards Mori Gate side, he stopped the bus which was being driven by accused at Mori Gate bus stand and apprehended the accused and gave message to PS Kotwali. He further stated that HC Ram Avtar came to the spot and took the accused and offending bus to PS Kotwali. He correctly identified the accused and the photographs of the offending bus. 7.10 PW11 is the doctor who examined injured brought with alleged history of road traffic accident and proved MLC vide Ex. PW11/A. 7.11 PW12 is the wife of the injured and stated that on 10.06.2001 on receipt of telephonic information regarding accident of her husband, she alongwith her brother in law Arun Kapoor and other relatives came to Trauma Center, Delhi and shifted her husband to Appollo hospital and due to accident, her husband has lost his memory.
7.12 PW13 is the injured and passenger of the TSR and stated that on 09.06.2001 he came to Delhi by train and deboarded at New Delhi Railway Station and took one auto rikshaw for NOIDA and when he reached near Subhash Marg, Red Fort, one bus bearing No. DL 1P 6013 came from Mori Gate side in rash and negligent manner and hit FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 8/19 against the TSR. He correctly identified the accused as the driver of the offending bus but stated that due to injuries, he do not remember anything else as he became unconscious.
7.13 PW14 is the DO and proved the DD No. 25 by which departure of Ct Ishwar Singh and Ct Raj Kumar were made vide Ex. PW14/A. The copy of DD No. 25 was only proved as original register has been destroyed by the order of DCP concerned. During cross examination he stated that be was posted as Duty Officer at police post fountain but fail to recall who was the chowkiincharge and how many staff were deputed at police post fountain on that day. He further stated that the departure entry of Ct Ishwar Singh and Ct Raj Kumar were made at about 9.10 pm for Chhatta Rail. On being questioned that on the basis of which information, departure entry of Ct Ishwar Singh and Ct Raj Kumar was made, he stated that two constables were always deputed in police post on emergency duty. He further stated that on 09.06.2001 all the DD entries from to 9pm to 9pm were made by him but fail to recall how many entries were made on that day by him and whether chowki incharge was present at the time of making DD entry or not. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at police chowki as duty officer on 09.06.2001 and is deposing falsely.
7.14 PW15 is the registered owner of offending bus No. DL 1P 6103 plying under DTC and got released the offending vehicle on supardari vide Ex. PW15/A. During cross examination, he stated that bus was plying on route No. 753 from Uttam Nagar to Mori Gate. PW15 was FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 9/19 recalled for reexamination on 27.07.2011. During reexamination he stated that on the date of accident i.e 10.06.2001, accused Sardar Joginder Singh was driving the offending bus. He proved the seizure of insurance, permit and RC vide Ex. PW15/B. During further cross examination he denied the suggestion that on the day of accident i.e 10.06.2001 accused was not driving the bus and stated that accused was apprehended on the same day from Mori Gate and not from the spot.
7.15 PW16 is the doctor who proved the postmortem report vide Ex. PW16/A and opined that all the injuries were ante mortem in nature consistent with road traffic accident and death was due to cranio cerebral injuries (head injury). During cross examination he stated that injuries were present bilaterally on the body. He also stated that most of the time, head injuries are of secondary impact but they may be on account of primary impact.
7.16 PW17 is the Duty officer and stated that on 09/10.06.2001 at about 7.15 am an information as received from PCR regarding an accident at Chatta Rail Chowk, red light, Kodaipul, Delhi and death of injured and proved DD No. 3A in this regard vide Ex. PW17/A. He further stated that said DD was handed over to Ct Vikramjeet for handing over to ASI Dharam Chand. He stated that the original DD register has been destroyed by the order of Additional DCP, North vide order No. 10060/Genl./North Distt, dated 29.04.2005 Mark A. During cross examination he recall the name of person who informed about the accident and stated that it was call sign N51.
FIR No. 346/01
PS- Kotwali
State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 10/19
7.17 PW18 is the ATI concerned at that time and stated that on the request of IO he gave the duplicate memo of schedule of bus No. DL 1P 6103 on Route No. 753 plying from Uttam Nagar to Mori Gate Terminal and also gave ID card number of driver Sardar Joginder Singh. He proved the copy of same vide Ex. PW18/A. During cross examination he stated he has no personal knowledge of the case. 7.18 PW19 is the IO and stated that on 10.06.2001 on receipt of DD No. 3A Ex. PW17/A he alongwith Ct Vikramjeet Singh reached the spot i.e Chhatta Rail Chowk where Ct Ishwar Singh met and in the meantime HC Avtar also came on receiving of wireless message. He further stated that on information that offending vehicle No. DL 1P 6103 was apprehended by PCR van near Mori Gate, he sent HC Avtar to Mori Gate for taking bus and driver of the said bus. He further stated that he collected the MLC from hospital of unknown person and doctor opined him unfit for statement. He further stated that he came back at the spot where the bus and driver of the offending bus Sardar Joginder Singh were present alongwith HC Avtar and dead body of driver of TSR No. DL 1RD 2987 was lying at the spot. He further stated that photographs of the spot, dead body, offending vehicle were taken and rukka was prepared and FIR was got registered through Ct Vikramjeet. He further stated that proceedings U/s 174 Cr.P.C of deceased was conducted and in the meantime Ct Vikramjeet came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him. He stated that he seized the three bags of the injured lying in the TSR and also seized the bus, TSR and one FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 11/19 aluminum patti of the bus and arrested the accused and prepared site plan. He also stated the proceedings regarding identification of injured and deceased and conducting of postmortem of deceased and identification of dead body of deceased. He further stated that mechanical inspection of bus as well as TSR was got conducted by him. He also proved the statement of PW1 and arrest and personal search of accused, personal search of deceased, site plan, seizure of bus and TSR, seizure of suitcase belonging to injured and documents of offending vehicle. He also proved the personal search of injured, seizure of aluminum patti, photographs of the spot with negatives, seizure of driving license of deceased, one polythene on which Varun Kapoor name was mentioned and one ticket and one slip of bank vide Ex. PW19/A to PW19/F and slip of deposited driving license of accused vide Ex. PW19/G. He further stated that handing over memo of deceased was prepared and statement of Devi Prasad, son of deceased and Sharda Prasad, uncle of deceased were recorded vide Ex. PW19/I to Ex.PW19/J. He correctly identified the TSR and bus and the accused. During cross examination he stated that PCR call of fatal accident was received at 7.15am vide DD No. 3A and he went to the spot on foot. He further stated that the distance between Chhata Rail Chowks and PP Red Fort is 70/80 meters away and SI Ranveer Singh was chowki incharge. He further stated that site plan was prepared by him after coming back from Trauma center. He also stated that he do not find the offending bus at the spot and one three wheeler and dead body of driver was lying at the spot. He also stated FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 12/19 that public person were coming and going but no eye witness was found and only statement of Ct Ishwar Singh was recorded at the spot within first 30 minutes. He denied the suggestion that site plan was prepared at the police station but fail to recall whether any signatures of witness were taken on site plan. He further denied the suggestion that fair investigation in the case was not done by him and offending bus was not involved in the accident. He also denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated and he had not conducted proper investigation and is deposing falsely. 7.19 PW20 proved the discharge summary of the injured Varun Kapoor vide Ex. PW20/A (colly). During cross examination he had not seen Varun Kapoor at the time of medical examination.
8. DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
8.1 In his defence, accused examined DW1 Dharambir Singh. He stated that he has come to court on receipt of summons from Depot Manager. He further stated that it was summer time and date as 10.06.2001 and he was deputed as conductor under DTC bus bearing No. DL 1P 6103 and the driver of the bus was Sardar Joginder Singh.
He further stated that the bus started at 6.15 am from Uttam Nagar and was to go to Mori Gate and due to heavy traffic, bus became late. He stated that no accident took place with the bus and the bus reached at Mori Gate and was preparing to return to Uttam Nagar when police bike came and questioned the driver about the accident which they denied. During cross examination by Ld APP for the State he stated that he was deputed with the accused as some staff was FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 13/19 absent but fail to recall as to how many times he was deputed on the bus driven by accused in a month and stated that it vary from 2 day to 12 days per months. He admitted that he use to sit at conductor seat which is situated at rear side of bus. He stated that police officer apprehended the driver from Mori Gate Terminal and 10/20 passengers were in the offending bus. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely being conductor of the said bus and performing his duty alongwith accused.
9. PW1 who is the complainant has specifically stated that despite yellow signal on traffic light, the offending vehicle was driven in high speed and hit the TSR. As per standard road users practice, whenever, any signal is put to yellow, the drivers are expected to exercise utmost caution while passing through that particular stretch. But in the present case, the offending vehicle which is commercial bus was still driven in very fast speed and after hitting the TSR, it ran away leaving the occupants of the TSR on their own. This conduct of the accused shows not only rashness but negligence on his part as it endangers human life as well as property. The arguments of Ld defence counsel that accused has been falsely implicated and no accident caused by offending vehicle is humbly rejected as despite lengthy cross examination of eye witness PW1, no material contradictions could be brought forthwith. Eventhough, DW1 stated that the bus did not caused the accident but during cross examination by Ld APP, he admitted that he used to sit on the rear side of the bus and as per prosecution version, offending vehicle hit from the front FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 14/19 side and it is very likely that the conductor who is DW1 failed to notice that the driver of the offending vehicle has hit the TSR. Moreover, one interesting suggestion is put to the witness by Ld defence counsel that the TSR had taken dangerous Uturn in order to save passing vehicles. This implies that offending vehicle was very much present at the time of accident at the spot. Another suggestion putforth that the accident occurred with another bus and not from the bus in question also shows the culpability of the accused as inference can be drawn that accused knew that TSR has been hit by a bus. Moreover, all the suggestions seeking to disprove the case of the prosecution has been denied by the eye witness. In the circumstances, the ingredients of offence U/s 279 IPC are proved against the accused beyond doubts.
10. In view of the testimonies of the PWs recorded, it is manifestly proved that it was the accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. Now it be seen whether that rash and negligent act resulted in the death of the deceased or not.
11. The offence U/s 304 A IPC is made out if death is caused of any person by doing rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. In Rathnashalvan Vs. State of Karnataka, (SC) 2007 AIR (SC) 1064, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that;
"Section 304A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 15/19 Section 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 16/19 wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
11.1 Negligence is a tort as well as a crime used for the purpose of fastening the defendant with the liability under the Civil law and at times under the criminal law. To fasten the liability in criminal law, the degree of negligence has to be higher than that of negligence to fasten for damages in civil law. The essential ingredients of mens rea cannot be excluded from the consideration when the charge in a criminal Court consist of criminal negligence. In order to hold the existence of criminal rashlessness or or criminal negligence, it shall have to be found out that the rashlessness was of such a degree as to amount to having a hazard, having that the hazard was of such a degree that the injury was most likely imminent. The element of criminality is introduced by the accused having run the risk of doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequence. An accident FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 17/19 may occur due to many factors and not only by negligent driving. An accident may occur due to error of judgment in driving or even due to some factor not necessarily being negligence of the driver. But in order to bring home the guilt in cases of 304 A IPC, the prosecution has to strictly prove and discharge the burden upon it. To show that the accident and the consequent death of the deceased took place due to negligent act of the accused. That such act may cause the death of such a person.
12. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
12.1 PW10 who is the PCR official has also stated that a message was received by PCR that vehicle No. DL 1P 6103 at Chatta Rail Crossing has caused accident with TSR and thereafter it ran away from the spot. This witness despite opportunity was not cross examined by accused. The testimony of PW10 is also corroborated by PW1, PW3 as well as PW17. Eventhough, the original DD entries were not produced before the Court as they were destroyed by order of DCP in the year 2005 but attested copies of same were produced.
As per the mechanical inspection report, offending vehicle was found OK and fit for road test and the TSR found fresh damages which were in corroboration with the case of the prosecution. PW15 has also proved that the offending vehicle was driven by accused on the date of incident.
12.2 PW18 has proved that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle. He proved the duty slip. The death of the deceased as a result of accident has been proved by PW16 vide its postmortem FIR No. 346/01 PS- Kotwali State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 18/19 report Ex. PW16/A. Even despite cross examination, no suggestion has been put to draw the injuries suffered by the deceased are not result of accident.
12.3 PW13 is the injured and had also specifically stated that the offending vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner and hit the TSR. PW1 and PW13 both identified the accused who was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit the TSR. In view of the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses recorded and material on record, it is manifestly clear that accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and caused death of TSR driver and grievous injury to passenger were proved by PW11, PW12 and PW13.
13. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the allegations against the accused beyond doubts and accused has failed to put any probable defence. Accordingly, the accused Sardar Joginder Singh is convicted for the offence under Section 279/338/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Copy of judgment be given free of cost of convict.
Put up for arguments on sentencing on 16.04.2014 at 2pm.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
COURT ON 15.04.2014 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07
CENTRAL/TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI.
FIR No. 346/01
PS- Kotwali
State Vs. Sardar Joginder Singh page 19/19