Delhi District Court
State vs Desh Raj on 4 November, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH BHASKAR MANI TRIPATHI,
MM-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. DESH RAJ
FIR No. 180/2013
PS: CHANAKYA PURI
U/S: 279/304-A IPC
CNR No. : DLND02-002282-2014
Date of commission of offence : 05.10.2013
Date of institution of the case : 25.03.2014
Name of the complainant : SI Naresh Kumar
Name of accused and address : Deshraj
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o 133-A, Ali Ganj, Kotla,
Mubarakpur
New Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/304-A IPC
State Representation : Sh. Prashant Chaudhary, Asst.
Public Prosecutor
Plea of Accused : Plead not guilty
Final order : Convicted U/s 279/304-A IPC
Date of judgment : 04.11.2023
FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 1 of 17
State Vs. Deshraj
PS. Chanakya Puri
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.10.2023 at 09:00 am, on Shantipath opposite US Embassy, Chanakya Puri, accused was driving the vehicle bearing no. DL-1ZZ 1490 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Further, while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner accused hit one cyclist namely Murugesh from behind and thereby caused his death. After the completion of necessary formalities, charge sheet has been filed in this court. Cognizance of the offence was taken and accused was summoned.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 25.03.2014. Cognizance was also taken on same day. Copy of charge-sheet was supplied to accused and charge was framed against the accused for offences punishable U/s 279/304-A IPC on 20.09.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 09 witnesses till date.
(3.1) ASI Ramesh Chandra was examined as PW-1 who deposed that on 05.10.2013, he was posted at PCR Zone, New Delhi and on that day, his duty timing were 08:00 am to 08:00 pm and at about 09:00 am, when he was on patrolling duty at Shantipath and reached near Americal Embassy there, he saw one taxi bearing no. DL-1ZZ-1490 coming in fast speed being driven in rash and negligent manner. The said taxi hit a cyclist to which he fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Thereafter, he with the help of driver and public persons took the injured to Primus Hospital and informed control room about the accident. IO came at the spot and recorded his statement U/s 161 FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 2 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri CrPC. He correctly identified the photograph of offending vehicle. The accused's injury was not disputed.
During cross examination of PW-1, he deposed that the speed of the vehicle was about 60-70 KM and he was present from the spot at about 08-10 meters and the cyclist was going on left side on the road. The witness denied the suggestion that the cyclist was coming suddenly from pedestrian way due to which the offending vehicle hit cyclist as he had no opportunity to apply the brakes. He deposed that he had made a call at 100 number and his statement was recorded at the spot. He admitted the suggestion that his statement was recorded on 14.01.2014. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or the accused driving the vehicle with normal speed or that he was not present at the spot.
(3.2) Sh. Vincent was examined as PW-2 who deposed that he does not remember the date, but remember the year as 2013 and on that day, he was going towards Sardar Patel Marg and when he was crossing the road of Shantipath near US Embassy, he saw one Innova car coming in the high speed and hit one cyclist from back side due to which, the head of the cyclist hit against the mirror of the left side of the car and therefore, cyclist fell down and sustained injuries. They took the injured and made him sit inside the offending vehicle and injured was taken to Primus Hospital. Thereafter, in the evening of the same day, he went to Primus Hospital for visiting the injured. In the hospital, IO met him and he stated the whole incident to IO. The site plan Mark A was prepared by the IO at his instance. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He correctly identified the photograph of offending vehicle. Accused's identity was not disputed.
During cross examination of PW-2, he deposed that he was doing a job with a private soloar company at Defence Colony and at the time of accident, he was going to Sardar Patel Marg to meet his aunt and he was some FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 3 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri distance ahead from the spot where accident took place. PW-2 admitted the suggestion that he cannot tell about the speed of the offending vehicle and that he did not see hitting of the cyclist by the offending vehicle as he was at some distance ahead from the spot. PW-2 voluntarily stated that he saw the injured after accident. Thereafter, he took back for the spot. PW-2 admitted the suggestion that he cannot tell due to whom negligence the above said accident took place. PW-2 deposed that after the accident, the injured was unconscious and he know the injured/ deceased from the last 10-12 years at the time of accident as the injured used to live at Moti Bagh. PW-2 denied the suggestion that injured was his relative. He deposed that the injured was government servant and he does not remember when and where his statement was recorded. PW-2 denied the suggestion that at the time of accident, he was not present there or that the above said accident took place due to negligence of the accused. He further deposed that he cannot say whether the accused deposited Rs. 50,000/- in Primus Hospital for treatment of the injured.
(3.3) Sh. Mahender was examined as PW-3 who deposed that on 05.10.2013, he received a call at about 09:40 am from his sister and his friend regarding an accident of his father namely Murgesh (deceased) through Innova Car. Thereafter, he went to the hospital and his father was admitted in the emergency ward in accidental condition. He further deposed that on 07.10.2013, his father (Sh. Murugesh) died due to the accident. He identified the dead body of his father in Primus Hospital vide identification memo Ex.PW3/A. PW-3 was not cross-examined despite opportunity being given.
(3.4) Sh. B. Manoj Kumar was examined as PW-4 who deposed that on 05.10.2013 he received the call from Mahender S/o Late Sh. Murgesh regarding an accident of his family friend. Thereafter, he went to the hospital where he found that injured Murgesh was admitted in the hospital. He deposed FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 4 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri that on 07.10.2013, he came to know that injured Murgesh has expired due to the accident. IO got identified the dead body of deceased Murgesh in the Primus Hospital. He deposed that IO took his signature on the identification memo Ex.PW4/A. PW-4 was not cross-examined despite opportunity being given.
(3.5) Sh. Arvinder Singh was examined as PW-5 who deposed that on 10.10.2013, he was called by SI Daya Ram, PS Chanakya Puri to inspect Tyoto Innova Taxi bearing registration no. DL-1ZZ-1490 and prepared the report Ex.PW5/A and handed over the same to IO. On 15.11.2013, he conducted mechanical inspection of one cycle and submitted his report Ex.PW5/B. During cross examination of PW-5, he deposed that as per his report Ex. PW5/A, the offending vehicle bearing no. DL1ZZ-1490, front bumper left side scratch and front bonnet dented from left side and front left side windscreen broken. He conducted the mechanical inspection at PS Chanakya Puri. PW-5 denied the suggestion that he prepared a false report regarding the mechanical inspection above mentioned vehicle and cycle.
(3.6) SI Naresh Kumar was examined as PW-6 who deposed that on 05.10.2023 , he was posted as SI at PS Chankyapuri and at about 09:15 am, he received DD No.14A regarding an accident near US Embassy, Shanti Path, DD entry Mark X. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Naresh went to the spot and found one cycle lying on the road in accidental condition. He deposed that when he was present at the spot, he received information that injured was admitted in Primus Hospital Chankyapuri and thereafter, he instructed Ct. Naresh to remain at the spot and he left for Primus Hospital. In the hospital, he collected MLC of Murgesh and also met Deshraj who had committed accident. Thereafter, he came back to the spot alongwith accused Deshraj and prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Naresh for registration of FIR. The FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 5 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri rukka is Ex PW6/A. Thereafter he went to PS alongwith case property and accused persons and instructed accused Deshraj to remain present at the PS. Thereafter he went to Primus Hospital to look after injured and at the hospital he met Mr. Vincent who introduced himself as eye witness of the accident. He further deposed that thereafter he returned back to the spot alongwith the eye witness Mr. Vincent. PW-6 deposed that he recorded Mr. Vincent's statement and prepared site plan at his instance which is mark 'A' and thereafter he alongwith Mr. Vincent came back to PS. Seizure memo of offending vehicle DL 1ZZ 1490 was prepared by him vide memo Ex. PW6/B and seizure memo of accidental cycle was also prepared by him vide memo ExPW6/C. Photocopy of offending vehicle was seized by him which is Ex.PW6/D. DL of accused Deshraj was seized by him vide memo Ex.PW6/E. Accused was arrested by him vide memo Ex PW6/F and the accused was released on police bail. He further deposed that he served notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of offending vehicle Ex.PW6/G and he gave written reply on the above said notice. PW-6 correctly identified the offending vehicle from the photographs marked as 'P1 to P4'. He further deposed that on the next day, he went for leave and handed over the case file to the MHC(R) to the PS. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the withesses. and when he came back on duty after one month leave then he got conducted mechanical inspection of accidental cycle Ex. PW5/B. The identity of the accused was not disputed by his counsel.
During cross examination of PW-6, he deposed that the accident did not take place in his presence and he recorded the statement of eye witness at PS Chankyapuri. He further deposed that in the hospital, he came to know that the accused was shifted to hospital by offending vehicle. He deposed that he has no knowledge whether accused bear the medical expenses of injured or not. He reached at the hospital at around 10:15 AM and the injured was found unconscious in the hospital.
FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 6 of 17State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri (3.7) SI Ramvir Singh was examined as PW-7 who deposed that on 07.10.2023, he was posted as SI at PS Chanakyapuri and on the said date, the investigation was marked to him and he received DD No.16A regarding death of injured upon which he along with Ct. Upender reached the Primus hospital where he found the deceased M. Murgesh who was got identified from his relatives and prepared the identification memos Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW3/A. Thereafter, he got conducted the PM of the deceased from Lady Harding Hospital by filing applications vide dated 07.10.2013 alongwith form no. 25/35. Thereafter, he handed over the body to his relatives.
During cross examination of PW-7, he deposed that he had not met with the injured prior to the handing over the case to him. He admitted the suggestion that he had not done any other investigation apart from the aforesaid or that he did not get conducted the PM of the deceased.
(3.8) SI Amarbir Singh was examined as PW-8 who deposed that on 18.11.2013, he was posted as SI at MACT Cell and on that day, the present case was marked to him for further investigation and during investigation, he had verified the information sheet regarding the address proof of the accused Desh Raj. Thereafter, he had been transferred and he handed over the file to MACT Cell.
PW-8 was not cross-examined despite opportunity being given.
(3.9) SI Sudhir Kumar was examined as PW-9 who deposed that on 09.01.2013, he was posted as ASI at MACT Cell and on that day, the present case was marked to him for further investigation and during investigation, on 09.01.2013, he had recorded the statement of HC Ramesh Kumar and PCR officials u/s 161 Cr.PC. Further on 10.10.2013, he had verified the RC, permit, fitness and insurance offending vehicle verified from the concerned authority.
FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 7 of 17State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri Thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet and filed before the court.
During cross examination of PW-9, he denied the suggestion that he had not carried out the investigation in the fair manner or that he had filed the chargesheet in the mechanical manner.
4. During trial, vide separate statement of accused recorded U/s 294 CrPC, he admitted the FIR (Ex.A1), DD Entry No. 14A and 16A dated 05.10.2013 and 07.10.2013 respectively (Ex.A2 Colly), MLC No. 78/13 of Mr. Murgesh (Ex.A3), PM report no. 491/13 (Ex.A4), Superdarinama of vehicle DL 1ZZ 1490 (Ex.A5).
5. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded in which he denied allegations against him but did not opt to lead evidence in his defence. In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C the accused took the defence that he was not driving the vehicle at high speed, or in rash & negligent manner. The accused said that all of a sudden cyclist came in front of his car due to which accident took place.
6. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for state and Ld. defence Counsel and have perused the case file carefully. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts whereas Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that there are several loopholes in the case of the prosecution. It has been submitted that the accused not driving the vehicle at high speed, or in rash & negligent manner. It is argued that there is no eye witness present to substantiate the version of the prosecution that accused was driving rashly or negligently and there are many major contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. He has prayed that due to this contradiction, accused deserves acquittal.
FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 8 of 17State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCES :
7. The accused has been charged with section 279/304A IPC. The relevant sections are reproduced below for ready reference:
Section 279 IPC reads as under:-
"Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on 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 to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Section 304 A IPC reads as under:-
"Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both."
8. To secure the conviction in a vehicular accident case, the prosecution has to prove all the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt:
A. That an accident was caused with a particular vehicle. B. That accused was driving that particular vehicle which caused the accident.
C. That accident had taken place due to rash or negligent driving of accused facing trial in the Court.
D. The injury suffered by an injured or death of deceased was the direct result and consequence of that accident.
9. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash" and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 9 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
10. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"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 circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted............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".
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, all the above mentioned ingredients (A to D) are inter connected and inter related and hence, they are being taken up together and being disposed off jointly.
12. As far as Ingredient A and B, as mentioned, in the paragraph no. 8 of the judgment is concerned, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was caused by an offending Car bearing No. DL- 1ZZ-1490 FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 10 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC the accused has taken the stand that he was not driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, rather the cyclist appeared suddenly and caused the accident. PW-2 Vincent and PW-1 ASI Ramesh has deposed that at the time of accident, they saw that on the other side of road, an Innova Car being driven in a fast manner and hit against a cyclist due to which the cyclist hit against the mirror of the left side of the car and thereafter he fell down on the road. Both the witnesses identified the accused. In cross-examination of PW-1, the suggestion was denied that the cyclist was coming suddenly from the pedestrian due to which the offending vehicle hit the cyclist as had no opportunity to apply the brakes.
13. PW-6 SI Naresh Kumar, IO of the case, has deposed that he gave notice u/s 133 MV act to owner of the vehicle which is Ex. PW-6/G to the owner of the offending vehicle and the its reply shows that on the date of incident, accused was driving his vehicle at the time of accident. Notice u/s 133 M.V. Act and its reply clearly corroborate the testimony of witness PW-1 & PW-2.
14. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that testimony of PW Vincent should not be believed in as he is the sole eye witness, and other witness has not been examined by the prosecution. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. However, absolutely, no motive has been brought on record to show as to why the PW-2 Vincent would falsely implicate the accused in the present court. Moreover, PW-1 is an eyewitness as well as Police witness and PW-1 has deposed on the same line of PW-2. PW-1 & PW-2 have deposed emphatically on oath that the accused was driving the offending Car at the time of accident.
15. Therefore, keeping in view of the aforesaid discussion I am the opinion FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 11 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt ingredient no. A and B to the effect that accused was driving the offending Car bearing No. DL-1ZZ- 1490 at the time of accident at that time of accident.
16. As far as ingredient D is concerned, the prosecution has to prove that the death of victim Murgesh, was the direct result and consequence of the accident. Accused has admitted the post-mortem report of Murgesh. The postmortem report of the deceased Murgesh which is Ex. A-3, it shows the cause of death was "Cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force/surface impact to head. All injuries are antemortam in nature". Keeping in view of the same, the prosecution has proved ingredient no D to the effect that the death of Murgesh was direct result and consequence of the accident.
17. The prosecution has also to prove the Ingredient no. 'C' that the death of Murgesh was direct result and consequence of rash or negligent driving of the accused. PW-1 HC Ramesh & PW-2 Vincent has deposed that accused was driving his Innova Car in a high speed manner and hit against the cyclist due to which the cyclist fell upon the left mirror of the car and thereafter on road. Both the eye-witnesses deposed that the injured was taken to primus hospital by them and the accused in the offending vehicle.. The accused also ran away along with in his Indica Car. Thereafter, Control room was informed about the incident. In their cross-examinations, they have denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
18. Ld. Counsel for defence has argued that reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of sole eye witness is absence of evidence of independent witnesses. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that PW-1 is a police witness no reliance can be put on the same as inconsistencies have cropped up in the examination of the both the witnesses. As regards this anxiety of Ld. FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 12 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri defence counsel, it can be said that there is no bar in relying upon the testimony of Police witness, if his testimony is found to be reliable, supported with an independent witness PW-2 and there is nothing in law to not to take into consideration the testimony of a Police eye witness. Conviction can be based on testimony of solitary witness. Witnesses have to be weighed and not counted in as much as quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. Prudence, however, requires that some corroboration should be sought from other prosecution evidence in support of the testimony of a solitary witness particularly where such witness happens to be closely related to the deceased or the accused is one against whom some motive or ill will is suggested. In the present case there are two eye witnesses, one is the PW-2 and other is a Head Constable, both unrelated to each other.
19. Therefore, in light of the case law as discussed above the conviction can be based on the testimony of the sole eye witness, if the testimony of sole eye witness is clear, cogent and reliable.
20. In the present case, PW-1 HC Rajesh & PW-2 Vincent was extensively cross examined by the Id. counsel for accused but nothing substantial has come on record which can demolish or shatter his testimony. Both the eye witnesses have duly identified the accused. They have deposed emphatically on oath that accused got down from the car and saw the injured cyclist and therefore, their testimony is clear and coherent in nature and it inspires the confidence of the court.
21. PW-1 & PW-2 are the star witness of the present case. They have deposed that accused was driving his car in a fast manner and hit against a cyclist due to which the cyclist fell down.
FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 13 of 17State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri
22. At this stage, let us examine as to what amounts to rashness or negligence. In the case titled Ram Avtar V. State of Rajasthan, it was held in para 6 and 8 "6 Thus the essential ingredient for offence under Section 279 IPC is that the vehicle should be driven in 'rash and negligent manner'. The concept of rashness and negligence is borrowed from the law of tort into the criminal law. But in criminal law for rashness the criminality lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness or indifference to consequences. On the other hand, criminal negligence 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, 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 (Ref. To AIR 1944 Lah. 163). Hence, the prosecution has to prove the existence of these two elements to bring home the offence under Section 279 IPC. However, the mere fact that accused was driving vehicle at high speed may not attract provision of Section 279 IPC. For speed of a vehicle is not always determinative of the question whether vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. One has to consider the surrounding circumstance of the case to conclude whether the driving was done in rash and negligent manner or not?"
FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 14 of 17State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri
23. Now reverting back to the facts of the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused acted in rash or negligent manner, hit the victim and caused death of Victim Murugesh. PW HC Ramesh & Vincent have deposed emphatically on oath that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving in high speed and in rash & negligent manner and accident has happened because of that. Further, in cross eaxamination PW-1 has emphatically denied the suggestion that victim came suddenly on the road. Thus, it is established that the victim was already moving on the road and the accused person came from behind in a fast, rash & negligent manner thereby hitting the victim.
24. From the evidence on record it appear that accused was driving his vehicle at such a speed and manner that he failed to maneuver the vehicle on the wide road or slow it down to save the victim, hence rashness has been established against him beyond reasonable doubt. It is also established that the accused was negligent for not taking the reasonable care towards the victim on the road. Reliance is placed upon Paras Nath V. State of Delhi 2004 Crl. LJ73.
25. Negligent act means failure to take proper care and precautions jeopardizing the lives of other persons. It means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affair 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 FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 15 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the court.
26. It is amply clear from the above, that the rash or negligence driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the given case. If fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation, it must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives an offending vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. Likewise in the instant case, keeping in view of the testimony of PW-1 ASI Ramesh & PW-2 Vincent, it is crystal clear that the accused was driving the offending Car in a negligent manner and in fast, rash & negligent manner, due to which, he hit the cyclist. Therefore, rashness has been proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
27. As far as the contention of the counsel for accused that there are certain discrepancies in the testimony of PWs, I would like to say that minor discrepancies on trivial matter not touching the core of the matter cannot bring discredit to the story of the prosecution. Giving undue importance to them would amount to adopting a hyper-technical approach. It has been held in Thoti Manoher v. State of A.P. (2012) 7 Supreme Court cases in para 38.
.........the Court, while appreciation the evidence, should not attach much significance to minor discrepancies, for the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case are to be ignored.....
28. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has taken the stand that all FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 16 of 17 State Vs. Deshraj PS. Chanakya Puri the PWS has falsely implicated the accused. However, absolutely nothing has been brought on record to discredit the testimony of the PWs. Therefore, reliance can be placed upon their testimonies.
29. Hence, in view of the above said discussion, prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt all four ingredients as mentioned in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment to the effect that the accused while driving the offending vehicle i.e. Car bearing No DL-1ZZ-1490, in rash or negligent manner and while driving so hit a victim Murgesh and caused his death. Accordingly, the accused is liable for conviction u/s 279/304-A IPC. Consequently, accused Deshraj is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279/304 A IPC.
30. Let accused be heard on point of sentence.
31. This judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.
ANIMESH Digitally signed
by ANIMESH
BHASKAR BHASKAR MANI
TRIPATHI
MANI Date: 2023.11.04
TRIPATHI 16:10:39 +0530
Announced in the open court on (Animesh Bhaskar Mani Tripathi)
04th November, 2023 MM-02/ PHC-02/New Delhi
FIR No. 180/13 Page No. 17 of 17
State Vs. Deshraj
PS. Chanakya Puri