Delhi District Court
State vs . Vipin & Anr. on 22 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF Ms POOJA AGGARWAL:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 504/2005
PS Keshav Puram
State Vs. Vipin & Anr.
Date of Institution: 11.10.2007
Date of Judgment: 22.02.2020
JUDGMENT
a) Serial Number of the case : 537582/2016
b) Date of commission of offence: 18.10.2005
c) Name of the complainant: Chottey Lal
d) Name of Accused, his : 1.Vipin
parentage & residence S/o Sh. Mahender Singh,
R/o Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Agra
Road, District Mainpuri, U.P.
2.Swaraj, (Absconder)
S/o Sh. Jabar Singh,
R/o VPO Sehnas Dara @ Sahasra
Dhara, Distt. Dehradoon
Uttranchal
e) Offence complained of: Under Section 279/304A IPC
f) Plea of Accused: Pleaded not guilty
g) Final order : Conviction
FIR No. 504/05
PS Keshav Puram
U/s 279/304A IPC
State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 1 of 20
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1) In brief, the accused Vipin has been sent to face trial for commission of offences under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') upon the allegations that on 18.10.2005 at 12:30 a.m in front of premises No. C-38/4, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi he was driving truck bearing registration number HR 55 8318 in rash and negligent manner and that while pushing another truck bearing registration no. HR 38 D 6703 with the above-mentioned truck by driving the said vehicle in aforesaid manner, one Chandan Kumar Sharma who was fixing a wooden piece (Gutka) at the instance of co- accused namely Swaraj (driver of truck no. HR 38D 6703/ absonder in this case) came in between both the trucks and the accused caused the death of Chandan with such death not amounting to culpable homicide.
2) After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Vipin as well as accused Swaraj upon which cognizance of the offences was taken and while accused Vipin entered appearance and copy of the chargesheet with the documents were supplied to him, process under Section 82 CrPC was executed qua accused Swaraj and hence this judgment shall be qua the accused Vipin only.
3) After consideration of submissions as made, notice was served FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 2 of 20 upon accused Vipin for commission of offences under Section 279/304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses.
5) PW1 Chotte Lal being the complainant/eye-witness testified that on 18.10.2015, he was working as munshi at Sukh Chain Transport company and had gone to Jindal Dal Mill, Lawrence Road for loading of dal in truck bearing no. HR 38D 6703 which was parked near Jindal Dal Mill, Lawrence Road and when the said truck was called inside the mill, it did not start upon which its driver Swaraj and helper Chandan got down and Swaraj told the driver of another truck bearing number HR 55 8318 which was parked there upon which request of Swaraj, the accused Vipin ie the driver of the said truck agreed to push the truck of Swaraj and the helper Chandan held the Gutka (piece of wood) between the truck.
6) PW1 further testified that when accused Vipin pushed the truck of Swaraj Singh with truck, the Gutka fell and deceased Chandan was crushed between the trucks and the accused Vipin had not seen the gutka fall down and he pushed the truck of Swaraj due to which Chandan was crushed whereafter accused Vipin ran away from the spot. PW1 further testified as to having called the the police upon which police came to the spot and recorded his FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 3 of 20 statement Ex. PW-2/A on which he identified his signatures. He further testified that the injured was then shifted to Jagjivan Ram Hospital and went on to testify that both drivers of the truck had not seen the injured as accused Vipin had pushed the back of the truck of accused Swaraj with the back of his truck due to which the deceased sustained injuries and Chandan expired later. PW1 further testified that he had also gone to the mortuary where IO recorded his statement ie Ex. PW-2/B on which he identified his signatures. He further testified that the site plan was prepared at his instance and he correctly identified the accused in the Court and also identified the photographs of both the trucks ie Ex. P-1 to Ex.P-6. During the course of his evidence, the accused did not dispute the identity of truck bearing number HR 55 8318. PW1 was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused and was recalled under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon application of the Ld APP wherein he correctly identified the wooden plank seized vide Ex PW3/B and was again cross- examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
7) PW2 SI Shanti Lal being the then Duty Officer proved the factum of registration of present FIR ie Ex.PW2/A on 18.10.2005 on the basis of rukka received from Ct. Balraj sent by IO/ASI Balkishan. He also proved his endorsement Ex PW2/B on the rukka and testified as to having given the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct Balraj be given to ASI Balkishan. He was duly cross FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 4 of 20 examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
8) PW3 ASI Balraj (Ct Balraj as he then was) testified that on 18.10.2005, upon receipt of a call by the IO regarding accident, he went with the IO to the spot ie No. C-38/4, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Delhi where they found a truck HR 38D 6703 with blood stains near the rear body ie daala of the truck and they came to know that the deceased had already been taken to BJRM Hospital by PCR whereafter IO left him at the spot and went to the BJRM hospital and IO sent one government motorcycle on which photographer Ct Sunil was called from Ashok Vihar for taking photographs and the IO could not find the other truck bearing number HR 55 8318 despite searching for the same.
9) PW3 further testified that the IO had seized the truck bearing registration number HR 38D 6703 vide Ex PW3/A, IO had seized the wooden piece (gutka) vide Ex PW3/B, IO had seized the permit of said truck vide memo Ex PW3/C and that the IO had seized the DL of the accused Swaraj vide Ex PW3/D. He further testified that the accused Swaraj was arrested and personally searched vide Ex PW3/E and Ex PW3/F and his disclosure statement Ex PW3/G was also recorded by the IO. He also identified the truck through photographs Ex P1, P4 to P6 and identified his signatures on the documents. He was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
FIR No. 504/05PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 5 of 20
10) PW4 HC Sudhir testified that on 17-18.10.2005, he was posted as Photographer in Photo Section District Police Line Ashok Vihar when on 18.10.2005 at about 1.30 am, IO took him on his government motorcycle to the police of incident i.e., C-38/4, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, where on truck bearing number HR 38D 6703 was found and blood spots were lying behind the said truck. He further testified as to having taken the photographs Ex. P1 to P6 testifying that the blood spots were visible on Ex P1 and Ex P4. He was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for accused.
11) PW5 ASI Siya Ram (Ct Siya Ram as he then was) testified that on 21.07.2006, one Jai Sri Ram being registered owner of truck bearing registration no. HR-55-8318 produced the accused Vipin who was stated to be driving the said truck on 18.10.2005 at about 12.30am. He further testified that the said truck was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/A, copy of permit and insurance were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/B, temporary registration certificate was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/C and DL of accused Vipin was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/D. He further testified that accused Vipin was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW5/E and Ex. PW5/F respectively identifying his signatures on the documents. He correctly identified the photographs of the truck Ex P2 and Ex P3. He was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 6 of 20 accused.
12) PW6 Dr. Upender Kishore being the then Junior Specialist, BJRM Hospital testified that on 15.10.2005, he conducted postmortem on the dead body of one Chandan Kumar and proved his detailed report Ex. PW6/A testifying that he had opined the cause of death as 'shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries to the left lung and head and that all injuries were ante mortem and produced by blunt force impact possible in manner suggested. He was not cross examined by the Ld Counsel for accused despite opportunity.
13) PW7 Sh. Jaisi Ram testified as to being the registered owner of truck bearing registration number HR 55 8318 and further testified as to having received notice u/s. 133 M. V. Act from the IO to which he replied on 21.07.2006 vide Ex. PW7/A wherein he stated that the accused Vipin was driving his truck on 18.10.2005 at about 12.30 am. He correctly identified the accused as well as truck through photographs Ex. P2 and P3 and was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
14) PW8 Retd. SI Bal Kishan (ASI Bal Kishan as he then was) being the Investigating Officer testified that on 18.10.2005, upon receipt of DD no 4A regarding accident, he went with Ct Balraj to the spot ie No. C-4/38, Lawrence Road Industrial Area near Garg FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 7 of 20 Dharmkanta where they found a truck HR 38D 6703 in accident condition with blood stains on the ground and on the backside of the truck and that upon enquiry they came to know that the deceased had already been taken to BJRM Hospital by PCR whereafter he left Ct Balraj at the spot and went to the BJRM hospital where he collected the MLC of the injured Chandan who the doctors had declared as brought dead.
15) He further testified that in the hospital he met an eye-witness Chotte Lal whose statement Ex PW2/A was recorded and they both went to the spot where he/PW8 prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct Balraj who returned to the spot with the copy of FIR and original rukka which Ct Balraj gave him. He further testified that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/B and on the same day, he served the notice under section 133 M. V. Act ie Ex. PW8/C on the owner of the truck who replied that the truck was being driven by accused Swaraj at the time of the incident.
16) He further testified as to having seized the truck bearing registration number HR 38D 6703, the wooden piece (gutka) and the permit of said truck vide Ex PW3/A to Ex PW3/C with the permit being Ex Y1. He further testified as to having arrested and personally searched the accused Swaraj vide Ex PW3/E and Ex PW3/F and as to recording his disclosure statement ie Ex PW3/G. He further testified that on 18.10.2005, he had also seized the DL FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 8 of 20 of accused Swaraj vide Ex PW3/D.
17) PW8/IO further testified as to having gone to hospital thereafter where he got the postmortem conducted after getting the dead body identified by Chotte Lal and Ram Nath vide memo Ex PW2/B and Ex. PW8/D whereafter the dead body was handed over vide memo Ex PW8/E. He further testified that on 21.07.2006, he served the notice under Section 133 M. V. Act ie Ex. PW8/F on the owner of the second truck bearing registration number HR 55 8318 and the said truck was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/A, copy of permit and insurance were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B and temporary registration certificate was seized vide memo Ex.PW5/C. He further testified that on 21.07.2006, the owner of the truck number HR 55 8318 produced the accused/driver Vipin who was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW5/E and Ex. PW 5/F respectively and DL of accused Vipin was seized vide Ex PW 5/D.
18) PW8 further testified that on 24.07.2006, he got the mechanical inspection of truck bearing registration number HR 55 8318 and conducted vide request letter Ex. PW8/G and on 22.10.2006 and he got the mechanical inspection of truck bearing registration number HR 33D 6703 conducted vide request letter Ex. PW8/H. He also relied upon the attested copy of DD No. 4A dated 18.10.2005 ie Ex. PW8/I. He correctly identified his signatures on FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 9 of 20 the documents and correctly identified both the trucks through photographs Ex. P1 to P6. He was duly cross examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused. He was then recalled under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon application of the Ld APP wherein he correctly identified the wooden plank seized vide Ex PW3/B and was again cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused.
19) PW9 Retd. ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar being the Mechanical Inspector testified that on 22.10.2005, on request of IO/ASI Bal Kishan, he had conducted the mechanical inspection of one truck bearing registration No. HR-38B-6703 at PS Keshav Puram and also proved his report Ex.PW9/A and went on to testify that the vehicle was found to be fit for road test. He further testified that the request letter for conducting the mechanical inspection was received on 22.10.2005 itself and not 22.10.2006 and the date of 22.10.2006 under the signatures of the IO was written inadvertently.
20) PW9 further testified that on 24.07.2006, on request of IO/ASI Bal Kishan, he conducted the mechanical inspection of the another truck bearing registration No. HR 55 8318 at PS Keshav Puram and proved his detailed report Ex.PW-9/B as per which the vehicle was fit for road test. He was not cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
FIR No. 504/05PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 10 of 20
21) PW10 Harish Kumar testified that he had got the truck number HR 55 8318 released on superdari on 25.07.2006 vide superdginama Ex PW10/A and went on to testify that on the day of the incident, the vehicle was registered in the name of Sh Jai Siya Ram. He also correctly identified the said truck from photographs Ex P1 (colly). He was also not cross-examined by the Ld Counsel for the accused despite opportunity.
22)After prosecution evidence was closed, the statement alongwith additional statement of accused Vipin were recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused who maintained his innocence and chose to lead defence evidence. However, vide separate statement, DE was closed without examining any witness in defence.
23)Final arguments were then advanced by the Ld APP for the State as well as the Ld Counsel for the accused which have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
24)It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, it is for the State to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence and it is for the prosecution to ensure that its case is able to stand on its own legs.
FIR No. 504/05PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 11 of 20 The prosecution cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weakness of the defence of the accused if any. Accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution version.
25) To establish the guilt of the accused, it was for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt:
1. the factum of an accident having been caused by offending vehicle;
2. the identity of the accused as the driver of offending vehicle
3. the accident to be result of the rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place and
4. factum of death of Chandan having resulted from such rash and negligent act of the accused where such death did not amount to culpable homicide.
Factum of incident / accident having been caused by offending vehicle
26)In the present case, PW1/Chotte Lal has categorically testified that on 18.10.2005, when truck bearing no. HR 38D 6703 was called inside the Jindal Dal Mill for loading of dal, it did not start upon which its driver Swaraj (absconder) and helper Chandan (deceased) got down and accused Swaraj requested accused Vipin ie the driver of another truck bearing number HR 55 8318 upon which request accused Vipin agreed to push the truck of Swaraj and the helper Chandan held the Gutka (piece of wood) between FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 12 of 20 the truck. PW1 has gone on to categorically testify that when accused Vipin pushed the back of the truck of accused Swaraj with the back of his truck, the Gutka fell and deceased Chandan was crushed between the trucks and expired later.
27)The testimony of the complainant/PW1 Chotey Lal in respect of the manner of accident has gone unrebutted since not even a single suggestion was put to him in his cross-examination to the contrary. No material contradiction, variation, improvement or omission was brought forth in his cross-examination so as to raise any doubt as to the deceased having been crushed between the truck bearing number HR 55 8318 and truck bearing number HR 38D 6703. No any reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the credit- worthy and unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 Chotey Lal which inspires confidence of the Court even more so since the registration number of the said vehicle was also mentioned categorically in the statement Ex PW2/A of the complainant on which aspect, the complainant/PW1 was never cross-examined and even at the time of recording of statement under Section 281 read with section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no explanation was furnished in respect of the same. Hence the factum of the deceased having been crushed between the truck bearing number HR 55 8318 and truck bearing number HR 38D 6703 stands duly proved.
FIR No. 504/05PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 13 of 20 Identity of the driver of the offending vehicle
28)During his testimony in the Court, the complainant/PW1 Chotey Lal has correctly identified the accused Vipin as the driver of the truck bearing number HR 55 8318 at the time of the accident / incident in question. The factum of the accused driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident / incident in question has also been duly corroborated by the testimony of PW7 Jai Siya Ram who has proved his reply to the notice under Section 133 MV Act ie Ex PW7/A as per which the accused Vipin was driving the truck bearing registration number HR 55 8318 on 18.10.2005 at about 12.30 am. The identification of the accused as the driver of the said truck by PW1/the complainant Chotey Lal as well as PW7 Jai Siya Ram went unrebutted as they were not cross-examined in this respect on behalf of the accused nor any reason has been brought on record to disbelieve the consistent, credit-worthy and unrebutted oral testimony of PW1 Chotey Lal and PW7 Jai Siya Ram. Thus, in view of such unrebutted testimony, the factum of the accused Vipin being the driver of the truck bearing registration number HR 55 8318 at the time of accident / incident in question stands duly proved.
Incident was result of the rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place
29) It is duly noted that a rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 14 of 20 in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution (Ref: Mohd. Aynuddin alias Miyam v. State of A.P. (2000) 7 SCC 72).
30) The ambit of Section 304A IPC has also been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rathnashalvan v State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 1064 wherein it had observed that:
'7. Section 304A IPC 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 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 FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 15 of 20 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.
8. As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or 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."
31)In the present case PW1/Chotte Lal has categorically testified that on 18.10.2005, since truck bearing no. HR 38D 6703 did not start, its driver Swaraj (absconder) and helper Chandan (deceased) got down and upon request of accused Swaraj, accused Vipin being the driver of truck bearing number HR 55 8318, agreed to push the truck of Swaraj and the helper Chandan held the Gutka (piece of wood) between the truck. PW1 has also categorically testified that when accused Vipin pushed the back of the truck of accused Swaraj with the back of his truck, the Gutka fell and deceased Chandan was crushed between the trucks and expired later and that both the drivers did not see the injured due to which the deceased sustained injuries. The said testimony of the complainant/PW1 Chotey Lal in respect of the manner of accident has gone unrebutted since not even a single suggestion was put to him in his cross-examination to the contrary nor any material FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 16 of 20 contradiction, variation, improvement or omission was brought forth in his cross-examination so as to discredit his testimony nor any evidence has come on record to prove any motive or previous enmity to falsely implicate the accused in this case.
32)It is pertinent to note here that while the truck bearing number HR 38D 6703 was stationary being unable to start, it the vehicle number HR 55 8318 which was in motion in as much it was the truck number HR 55 8318 which was pushing of the back side of the stranded truck from the back side while being driven by the accused Vipin. There is no evidence on record whether the accused Vipin had taken the assistance of any helper while so pushing the truck by its back side which has negligence writ at large since a vehicle as big as a truck requires the help of a helper when it is reversed since the driver of the truck cannot see what is behind the truck. The fact that the accused Vipin reversed his truck to push the stranded truck without even ensuring that no person was behind the truck is also proved from the testimony of the complainant/PW1 Chotey Lal who has categorically testified that both the drivers did not see the injured standing between the two trucks. This act of reversing his truck by accused Vipin without any helper and without ensuring that no one was behind his truck sufficiently establishes the failure on the part of accused Vipin to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally and in this case, to FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 17 of 20 Chandan in particular. Hence the factum of the incident in question being a result of rash and negligent act of the accused Vipin stands proved.
Death of Chandan to have resulted from rash/negligent acts of accused
33) The factum of the death of Chandan has been sufficiently proved by the prosecution in as much as PW6 Dr Upender proved the post mortem report of the deceased opining that the cause of death was due to 'shock and hemorrhage as a result of ante mortem injuries to the left lung and head and that all injuries were ante mortem and produced by blunt force impact possible in manner suggested and also proved his postmortem report Ex PW6/A as prepared by him. His testimony went unrebutted and thus the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Chandan died due to injuries sustained in the accident in question since the complainant/PW1 Chottey Lal has also corroborated the same in his oral testimony as well.
Other points
34) It is duly noted that in the cross-examination of the complainant/ PW1 Chottey Lal he admitted that he could not say whether the accident took place due to negligence of the accused and even in his complaint Ex PW2/A, the exact words rash and negligent were not mentioned as was admitted even by the IO/PW8 Retd SI FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 18 of 20 Balkishan. However, the same does not cast any doubts on the case of the prosecution as the factum of presence of rashness or negligence is to be determined by the Court from the facts proved on record and the opinion of any witness as to presence or absence thereof is not material. In the present case, the facts disclosing the presence of rashness/negligence have been sufficiently proved from the unrebutted testimony of the complainant/PW1 Chottey Lal and thus the absence of specific words rash or negligence in the complaint Ex PW2/A is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
35) It is also duly noted that in the entire cross-examination of the complainant/PW1 Chottey Lal, nothing could be elicited to disprove his presence at the spot at the time of the incident as he had reaffirmed in his cross-examination that he was present at the time of the incident. While, the IO/PW8 Retd ASI Bal Kishan was cross-examined and suggestions were put to him to the effect that the complainant was not an eye-witness or was planted witness, not even a single suggestion negating the presence of the complainant/PW1 was put to the complainant which thus sufficiently proves the presence of the complainant/PW1 at the spot.
Decision
36)In view of the above discussion from the cogent, credit-worthy testimony of the eye-witness/PW1 Chottey and as no material contradiction has come on record in respect of the investigation FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 19 of 20 carried out by the investigating agency, the prosecution is held to have discharged the onus cast upon it and has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Vipin S/o Sh Mahender Singh is convicted of offences under Section 279/304A IPC in FIR no. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram.
37)Copy of judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
Announced in the open court
on 22nd February, 2020 Digitally signed
by POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2020.02.22
16:44:05 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date: 2020.02.22
16:44:18 +0530
(POOJA AGGARWAL)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 504/05 PS Keshav Puram U/s 279/304A IPC State Vs Vipin & Anr. Page No. 20 of 20