Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Kumar on 21 January, 2026
State Vs. Amit
IN THE COURT OF MS. PAYAL SINGAL
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs Amit
FIR No. 556/2018
PS Burari
U/s 279/338 IPC
Cr. Case No. 12228/2019
JUDGMENT
21.01.2026
1) CNR Number of the case : DLCT02-024011-2019
2)The date of commission of offence : 04.12.2018
3) The name of the complainant : Sh. Chander Bhan
4) The name & parentage of accused : Amit s/o Sh. Sugreev
5) Offence complained of : u/s 279/338 IPC
6) The plea of accused : Not guilty
7) Final order : ACQUITTAL Date of Institution : 26.09.2019 Judgment reserved on : 19.12.2025 Judgment announced on : 21.01.2026 BRIEF FACTS:
1) The brief case of the prosecution is that on 04.12.2018, at about 8.45 pm opposite City Child Care Hospital, Burari, Digitally FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 1 of 20 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:31:09 +0530 State Vs. Amit Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Burari, the accused was driving a Chartered Bus bearing Registration Number DL 1PD 2569 in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby, he committed an offence punishable u/s 279 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC). It is also the case of the prosecution that on the said date, time and place, while so driving the abovesaid bus in such rash and negligent manner, the accused hit one bicycle from behind and caused grievous injuries to injured/complainant Chander Bhan. Thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 338 IPC. Thus, the accused has been charged with offences u/s 279/338 IPC.
2) After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court, upon which cognizance was taken of the offence and after complying with the provisions of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.), since prima facie, offence was being made out under the said sections, vide order dated 23.12.2021, charge was framed u/s 279/338 IPC against the accused Satbir to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the case was proceeded further for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3) Before proceeding with the prosecution evidence, it is relevant to mention here that during the course of trial, the accused had admitted the GPA for authorization in favour FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 2 of 20 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:31:20 +0530 State Vs. Amit of Hitesh (Ex.AD1); Affidavit alongwith superdarinama (Ex.AD2); Punchnama of vehicle no. DL1PD2569 (EX.AD3); Reply of notice u/s 133 MV Act (EX.AD4); copy of FIR (Ex. AD5); endorsement on rukka (Ex.AD6); Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex.AD7); GD No. 64A dated 04..12.2018 (Ex. AD8) vide which information was received at the PS qua the present accident; MLC no.14111/18 (Ex. AD9) and X-ray reports Cr. No. 14111/18 (Ex.AD10) without admitting the contents of the said documents. Furthermore, on account of the receipt of report of passing away of the Mechanical Inspector Sh. Gurdeep Singh and PW Dashrath, the witness at serial no. 2 and 4 were also dropped from the list of witnesses. Thus, the said witnesses were not summoned.
4) Accordingly, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the remaining 06 witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW-1 Sh. Chanderbhan i.e. the complainant/ injured, PW-2 Ct Deepak, PW-3 ASI Jitender, PW-4 Retired SI Gurdeep Singh, Mechanical Inspector, PW-5 SI Babu Lal and PW-6 SI Neeraj Saini.
Now, the relevant portions of the testimonies of all these witnesses shall be discussed one by one.
5) PW-1 Sh. Jagat deposed that on 04.12.2018/05.12.2018, but he did not remember the exact date, he was working as a patient care person in the area of Model Town and after completing his work, he left from Model Town on his FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 3 of 20 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:31:30 +0530 State Vs. Amit bicycle at about 8.00 p.m. to go to his house at Nathupura. The witness then stated that on way, when he reached near Laxmi Vihar stand near child care hospital, and at about 8.45 pm, one heavy vehicle, bt he did not remember the registration number, came from behind and hit his cycle from behind and in consequence of the said hit, he fell on the road about 15 feet away from his cycle. The witness further deposed that 4-5 public persons were present near stand, and tried to stop/apprehend the accused driver of the said bus but the accused driver left the aforesaid vehicle on the spot and succeeded in fleeing away from the spot. The witness then stated that he could not see the face of the said driver at the time of accident and that the abovesaid boys made a call at 100 number. After some time, one vehicle came and took him to Trauma Centre hospital where he was admitted and that due to the aforesaid accident, he got fracture in his right arm and he also sustained injury near his hip. The witness then stated that he did not give any statement to any police persons and also denied putting any thumb impressions on any statement Ex. PW-1/A. Thereafter, with the permission of the Court, Ld. APP for the State cross-examined the said witness as he was resiling from his previous statement but the said witness denied all the suggestions put to him regarding having any more knowledge about the present incident, regarding identity of the accused and the offending vehicle. The witness also denied having making any statement to the police officials and denied in toto the FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 4 of 20 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:31:38 +0530 State Vs. Amit entire contents of his statement. Furthermore, on specific pointing out by the Ld. APP for the State, the witness refused to identify the accused and the photographs of the offending vehicle but only identified his bicycle photographs.
6) PW-2 Ct Deepak deposed that on the intervening night of 04/05.12.2018, he was posted as constable at PS Burari.
On that day, he along with ASI Neeraj Saini were on emergency duty from 8.00 PM to 8:00 AM of next day when IO ASI Neeraj Saini received a DD No. 64-A regarding accident and injured at spot i.e. Nathupura Road, Lakshmi Nagar, Opp. City Child Care Hospital and thereafter, he alongwith IO went to the aforesaid spot. On reaching at spot, they saw a bus bearing No. DL-IPD-2569 white colour and one black cycle in accidental condition whereafter, IO clicked the photographs of the spot, bus and cycle from his mobile phone. At spot, they came to know that injured had already been shift to trauma centre and IO left him at spot for supervision and IO himself went to the trauma centre. The witness then stated that after sometime, IO returned to spot after recording the statement of the injured from trauma centre hospital and that in the meantime, the PCR van sugar 73 also came at spot whose In-charge ASI Jitender alongwith the accused Amit inside the PCR van. The witness further deposed that from ASI Jitender, IO came to know that the accused Amit is involved in the present case. Thereafter, IO preferred tehrir and handed over the same to the witness for registration of Digitally FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 5 of 20 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:31:47 +0530 State Vs. Amit FIR. Accordingly, the witness stated that he went to PS alongwith the tehrir and got registered FIR at PS and returned to spot alongwith copy of FIR and original tehrir and handed over the same to IO ASI Neeraj Saini whereafter, the IO prepared misal index. The witness deposed that IO seized the cycle vide memo Ex. PW2/A; IO seized the offending bus vide memo Ex. PW2/B whereafter, the cycle was placed in the bus and the said bus was taken to PS which was driven by the accused Amit Kumar at the instruction of IO and he was also sitting in bus at the time. On reaching at PS, IO arrested and personally searched accused Amit vide memos, Ex. PW2/C & PW2/D. IO seized the DL of the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/E; IO recorded the statement of ASI Jitender and he was discharged. The said witness correctly identified the accused in court as well as the photographs of the case property i.e. offending bus and one cycle.
7) PW-3 ASI Jitender deposed that in the intervening night of 04.12.2018 & 05.12.2018, he was posted at PS Burari as ASI. On that day he was performing his duty as In-charge at PCR Van Sugar 73. While he was patrolling along with HC Mahender Singh, at around 08:45 PM from Burari, on white colour bus bearing registration no DL1PD2569 and on the front of the bus "Tourist was written. The bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and they saw that the bus hit a cycle rider who was going on the left side of the bus. The cycle rider fell on the road with the cycle and he sustained injuries. The witness stated that they Digitally FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 6 of 20 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:31:57 +0530 State Vs. Amit somehow managed to stop the bus and apprehend the accused with the help of HC Mahender Singh. After enquiry, the name of the bus driver was revealed as Amit S/o Sugreev whereafter, they immediately took the injured namely Chander Bhan S/o Mani Ram to the Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi. They got the injured person admitted in the hospital and went back to the spot. The witness stated that before taking the injured to the hospital, he made a PCR call at 100 number. Thereafter, when they reached the spot, IO ASI Neeraj Saini was already present at the spot. PW-3 stated that he handed over accused to the IO whereafter, IO ASI Neeraj Saini prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Deepak, who came along with the IO, for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, at his instance, IO ASI Neeraj Saini prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/A; IO ASI Neeraj Saini prepared seizure memo of the offending bus vide seizure memo as Ex.PW2/B; IO ASI Neeraj Saini also prepared seizure memo of the cycle Ex. PW2/A. The witness also stated that while they were taking the injured to the hospital, they had informed his family members about the incident. Thereafter, after registration of FIR, Ct. Deepak returned at the spot along with the copy of FIR and original tehrir. Thereafter, Ct. Deepak and the IO kept the cycle inside the offending bus and the same was taken to the PS. The witness then stated that the accused drove the bus to the PS while all the police officials came in PCR Van to PS whereafter, his statement was recorded by the IO. The said witness Digitally signed by FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 7 of 20 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:32:06 +0530 State Vs. Amit correctly identified accused and the photographs of the entire case property.
8) PW-4 Retired Si Gurdeep Singh was a formal witness, being the Mechanical Inspector who conducted the Mechanical Inspection of the offending bus and the victim bicycle.
9) PW-5 SI Babu Lal was again a formal witness who deposed that on 06.03.2019, while he was posted at PS Burari as ASI, the further investigation of the present matter was marked to him. The witness deposed that after receipt of the file from MHC(R), the investigation was found to be complete whereafter, he prepared the DAR, filed it before the concerned court and then prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in court.
10) PW-6 SI Neeraj Saini deposed that on the intervening night of 04-05.12.2018, he was posted as ASI at PS Burari. On the aforesaid date, at about 9.00 pm, A DD No. 64 A regarding accident was marked to him.
Thereafter, he alongwith Ct Deepak reached opposite city Child Care Hospital, Laxmi Bihar, Burari where they found one bus bearing no. DL-IPD-2569 white in colour standing besides the road ahead of bus stand and one black bicycle in accidental condition found on a patri. They got to know that the injured and the bus driver was taken by the PCR to the hospital. Thereafter, he left Ct. Deepak at the spot to preserve the same he went to Trauma Center where he received the MLC of the injured namely Chander Bhan who was found to be under treatment but fit for the FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 8 of 20 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:32:16 +0530 State Vs. Amit statement. He recorded the statement of Chander Bhan Ex. PW1/A and the accused was not found in a hospital. He returned to the spot where PCR Van already there and produced accused before him. On the basis of the statement of the injured and MLC, he prepared tehrir Ex.PW6/A and handed over the same to Ct Deepak for the registration of FIR. Thereafter, he prepared site plan at the instance of I/C PCR Jitender Kumar Ex. PW3/A. In a mean time, Ct Deepak reached at the spot and handover the computerized copy of FIR alongwith original tehrir him. Thereafter, he seized the offending bus vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/B. He also seized the bicycle vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, he instructed the accused to bring the offending bus to the PS. The accidental bicycle was also kept in the said offending bus and brought to the PS. The case properties were deposited into the malkhana of PS Burari whereafter, he made inquiry with accused who produced his DL which was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/E; he made inquiry from accused and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW2/C. Thereafter, the accused was personally search vide personal search memo Ex. PW2/D; the accused also served notice u/s 133 MV act to the owner of the offending vehicle namely Hitesh who also produced the documents pertaining vehicle which was also seized Ex. PW6/B. The owner gave his reply of the said notice in which he mentioned that accused was driver of the offending vehicle at the time of incident. The said notice alongwith reply Ex. AD-4. He also fetched final opinion FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 9 of 20 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:32:26 +0530 State Vs. Amit from the concerned doctor regarding the injury caused to the injured and thereafter section 338 IPC was added as nature of injury was greivous. He also got verified the documents of the offending vehicles from the concerned authorities. The said witness correctly identified the photographs of the offending bus and the bicycle.
11) All the witnesses were duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused and the relevant portions of the same shall be duly discussed at the appropriate stage.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:
12) Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 12.07.2025 wherein the accused denied the case of the prosecution and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused further chose not to lead any defence evidence and accordingly, DE was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
13) The final arguments were advanced by Sh. H.G.R. Khattar, ld. counsel on behalf of the accused and Sh. Rohit Lohat, Ld. APP for the state.
14) It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence was that the prosecution was required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt which the prosecution had miserably failed to do in the case at hand. It was Digitally FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 10 of 20 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:32:35 +0530 State Vs. Amit argued that no independent/public person has identified the present accused as the driver of the offending vehicle in which case, it cannot be said that it was the accused who caused the present accident. It was argued that other than the identity of the accused, the other most important ingredient that the prosecution was required to prove was that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner but that the prosecution had miserably failed to bring on record any material to this effect. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Niranjan Singh v. The State (Delhi Administration) 1977 CriLJ 333; Abdul Subhan v. State NCT of Delhi 133 (2006) DLT 562; Mohd. Ayunddin @ Miyan v. State of Andhra Pradesh in support of the arguments. Accordingly, it was argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and the prosecution had miserably failed to produce any witnesses who saw the accused at the spot driving the offending vehicle on the date of the incident. It was also argued that the non-joinder of public witnesses despite availability and material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs were fatal to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, it was argued that the accused had been falsely implicated in the present case and was entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.
15) Per contra, it was argued by the Ld. APP for the state that there were ocular and documentary evidences on record to bring home the guilt of the accused. It was argued that the accused had failed to bring any material Digitally FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 11 of 20 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:32:45 +0530 State Vs. Amit contradictions in the testimonies of PWs and the same were also corroborated by the testimony of the other police witnesses which taken together were sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It was argued that the testimonies od PWs 1 and 3 when taken together were sufficient to prove all the ingredients necessary to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, it was argued that the state had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had caused the accident owing to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle which led to simple injuries to Dashrath and Jagat and grievous injuries to Ram Kewal. Thus, he was liable to be convicted of the offence u/s 279/338 IPC.
16) I have heard the arguments from both the sides and have carefully gone through the record.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
17) In the case at hand, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused has committed an offence u/s 279/338 IPC, so, first and foremost, the essential ingredients for the commission of said offences need to be seen. As per the settled law, for an offence under Section 279 IPC, what is essentially required is driving/riding a vehicle 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. Similarly, Section 338 IPC is made out when grievous injuries are caused to a person owing to such rash and negligent act.
Accordingly, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the Digitally FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 12 of 20 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:32:54 +0530 State Vs. Amit prosecution was required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, the following aspects:
a. That at the time of alleged incident, it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle, and b. The offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, and c. That the accused, while so driving the offending vehicle, in the aforesaid manner, hit the bicycle of the injured Chander Bhan and caused grievous injuries to him.
18) In the case at hand, in order to prove that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged incident, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of 2 witnesses i.e. PW-1/ the injured/ the complainant (who stated that one heavy vehicle hit his bicycle from behind but the driver ran away from the spot); PW-3 ASI Jitender i.e. the eye witness (who stated while he was performing his duty as In-charge of PCR Van Sugar, he saw one bus bearing registration no. DLIPD2569 being driven in a rash and negligent manner and hitting a cycle rider whereafter, the accused who was the driver of the said bus was apprehended). Out of the remaining 4 witnesses, none of them was an eye witness and thus the testimonies of these remaining witnesses can only be said to be corroborative in nature. Now, the testimony of both the injured persons shall be discussed in detail to see whether it is sufficient to establish that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 13 of 20 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:33:04 +0530 State Vs. Amit
19) Now, firstly coming to the testimony of PW-1 Sh.
Chanderbhan who has failed to identify the accused person as well as the offending vehicle in court. Although the said witnesses narrated the entire chain of events that transpired on the date of the incident but he did not remember the registration number of the offending truck, nor could he identify the photographs of the said when shown to him and he stated that he could not identify the same. Furthermore, the said witness also failed to identify the accused in court as the driver of the offending vehicle stating that he did not see the face of the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident and so, he could not identify him. The said witness further refused to have given any such statement to the police officials identifying the accused as the driver of the said truck and even after specific pointing out by the Ld. APP for the State, the said witnesses failed to identify the accused as the said driver. In the given circumstances, the testimonies of the said witness does not come to the aid of the prosecution to establish that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time.
20) Now, coming to the testimony of PW-3 ASI Jitender who is stated to be an eye witness of the present incident. Now, in the chief examination of the said witness, he correctly identified the accused in court and stated that it was the accused who was driving his bus i.e. the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged incident. the witness also stated that at about 8.45 om he saw one bus being driven in Digitally FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 14 of 20 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:33:14 +0530 State Vs. Amit a rash and negligent manner coming from the side of Burari and hitting one cycle rider who was going on the left side of the bus. In view of the said testimony, atleast at this stage, the court is of the considered opinion that the fact that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident stands proved.
21) Now, once ingredient (a) stands duly proved, the court moves a step ahead to examine the remaining two ingredients of rashness and injuries to the complainant.
Coming to ingredient (c) whether the complainant suffered grievous injuries resultant of the incident. In view of the medical documents of the accused Ex.AD9 and Ex.AD10 as well as the testimony of all the witnesses including the complainant, the factum of injuries stands duly proved and now the only question remains is whether the injuries were caused owing to rash and negligent driving by the accused of the offending vehicle.
22) In order to examine the merit or otherwise of contentions (b) as aforementioned, it is necessary for the Court to first and foremost examine what is rash and negligent driving and whether it can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. From a catena of judgments, the meaning of the said terms is no more res integra.
Digitally
signed by
FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 15 of 20 PAYAL
PAYAL SINGAL
SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21
14:33:23
+0530
State Vs. Amit
23) 'Negligence' means omission to do something which
a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the court. In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence. Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to its consequences i.e. without belief in the result of such doing. 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 a particular individual, 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. A rash act is primarily an Digitally FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 16 of 20 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:33:32 +0530 State Vs. Amit overhasty act and is opposed to a deliberate act, even if it is partly deliberate act; it is done without due thought and action. An illegal "omission" if negligent, may come under this section. Thus, the preliminary conditions are that:-
(i) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven;
(ii) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and
(iii) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life.
24) Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under section 279 IPC is attracted. It is also settled law that in a case under Section 279/338 IPC, in order to impose criminal liability upon the accused, it must be determined as a fact that a collision/accident was entirely, or at least mainly, due to rashness or negligence on the part of the driver. It is not sufficient to say that the accused was driving the vehicle at a fast speed. A mere error of judgment on the part of the driver would not make him liable under section 337/338. Moreover, the injury/death must be the direct result of the rash or negligent act of the accused and the act must be sufficient cause or the causa causans.
25) Now, at this stage, as already discussed above, it stands proved that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, however, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably Digitally signed by FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 17 of 20 PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:33:41 +0530 State Vs. Amit failed to prove the remaining third ingredient (b) wherein it is upon the prosecution to prove that the said vehicle was being driven in such a rash and negligent manner so as to cause the accident and consequential death of the deceased.
26) Now, the police witnesses, except PW-3 do not come to the aid of the prosecution as they were not eye-
witnesses to the incident in question as is clear from their testimonies already discussed above. As far as PW-1 and PW-3 is concerned, both the witnesses have merely stated that the offending bus was being driven at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Neither of the said witnesses has stated anything else other than this or provided any explanation in the manner or the way that the offending vehicle was being driven. In fact, PW-3 in his cross-examination has stated that, "... it is correct that the offending bus was being in the bus alne at the relevant point of time...". They did not mention any thing about the fact that the vehicle was being driven in a rash or negligent manner. Had the prosecution examined any witnesses in support of its story that the accused was riding the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner or the accused was not blowing the horns while driving the same, or riding at extremely high speed or jumping signal or coming from the wrong side, negligence could have been imputed upon the accused which is not so in the case at hand. In the given circumstances, in view of the settled law as discussed above, the court is not satisfied that the Digitally FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 18 of 20 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:33:50 +0530 State Vs. Amit ingredients of rash and negligent driving stand proved in the case at hand.
27) At this juncture, it is also relevant to note that the only witness to establish the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle is PW-3, however the testimony of the said witness also suffers from various contradictions qua the nature of damages as suffered by both the vehicles involved in which scenario, the said testimony also cannot solely be taken to prove the said fact. There are material contradictions in the testimony of the said witness and the mechanical inspection report of the vehicles in question and the exact manner of the placing of both the vehicles at the time of the alleged incident. In view of the said testimony, a reasonable doubt is created in the mind of the court as to whether actually the said witness saw the accused driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident or he was told the said fact by the public persons, in which scenario, the said identification cannot be taken to establish the fact that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the accident. The court is of the opinion that the said testimony cannot solely be taken to be reliable to establish the fact that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the alleged incident in the absence of any corroboration by the said public persons who might have apprehended him and gave him beatings.
28) In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the ingredients that the prosecution was duty FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 19 of 20 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 14:33:59 +0530 State Vs. Amit bound to prove to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 279/338 IPC have not been so proved. Accordingly, accused Amit is acquitted in the present case for offences that he is charged with i.e. 279/338 IPC as prosecution has failed to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. (Announced in open Court on 21st January 2026 ) Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL (The judgment contains 20 pages SINGAL Date:
2026.01.21 and all the pages bear my signatures) 14:34:06 +0530 (Payal Singal) JMFC-09/Central District Delhi/21.01.2026 FIR No. 556/2018, PS Burari Page No. 20 of 20