Delhi District Court
State vs . Mukesh Shukla on 9 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SONIKA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.479/2003
PS Shakarpur
State Vs. Mukesh Shukla
CNR No. DLET02-000298-2004
(a) Sr. No. of the case 6043/2016
(b) Date of offence 30.09.2003
(c) Complainant Sh. Shiv Kumar
(d) Accused, parentage and address Mukesh Shukla S/o C.L. Shukla, aged about
42 years R/o H.No.21B, Indra Park, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of Section 279/337/338 IPC
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order Convicted
(h) Date of institution 18.12.2004
(i) Date when judgment was 09.11.2022
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 09.11.2022 (on same day)
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Present chargesheet has been forwarded by the SHO, PS Shakarpur against the accused to face trial for the offences under Section 279/337/338 IPC.
2. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was made by the complainant Sh. Shiv Kumar stating that on 30.09.2003 at about 10.42 a.m., Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date:
2022.11.09 16:33:41 +0530FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.1/18 he was travelling in a RTV bearing registration No. DL1VA1172 which was being driven at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner and at SP1 Laxmi Nagar Red Light Corner, the driver of the RTV i.e. accused took a sharp turn towards Gandhi Nagar Pusta and as a result of which the said RTV overturned, resulting injuries to the passengers namely Shiv Kumar, Rajesh Tripathi, Rajender Kumar and other passengers travelling inside the said RTV. Consequently, the case was registered and after completion of investigation, the final report was filed for the offences under Sections 279/337/338 IPC against accused Mukesh Shukla.
3. Cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor v.o.d. 18.12.2004 and after taking cognizance, copy of the chargesheet alongwith documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. & the case was listed for arguments on notice.
4. After hearing the parties, a notice was served upon accused Mukesh Shukla for the commission of offence under section 279 IPC and secondly under section 337/338 IPC v.o.d 23.09.2006 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Thereafter, matter was listed for Prosecution's evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that several attempts were made to serve the summons upon the witness Virender but the process was received back unserved. Thereafter, summons were ordered to be served through DCP concerned but again, the same were received back unserved & hence the witness was dropped from the list of witnesses. It is also pertinent to mention that accused admitted MLCs of Bijender Yadav, Rajesh Tripathi, Rajender Kumar, Sateshwar and Abdul Gaffar (Ex.C1C5), as a result of which, the examination of the concerned witnesses were dispensed with. Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date:
2022.11.09 16:33:55 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.2/18
6. Prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. It is pertinent to mention that two witnesses namely ASI Suraj Pal and HC Satpal were inadvertently examined as PW5. Thus, the examination of HC Satpal be read as PW5A.
7. PW1 Sateshwar Giri deposed that on 30.09.2003, he had boarded RTV bus No. DL1VA1172 route no.301 from ITO which was full of passengers and at about 12.00 noon while taking turn at Shakarpur Chungi, it lost its balance and struck against pavement and thereafter overturned. He further deposed that even at the turning point, the driver of RTV did not slow down the speed and attempted to turn the RTV at the high speed as a result to which the RTV struck against pavement and overturned. He further deposed that at the turning point the speed was more than 50 km/hour. He further deposed that the RTV took turn towards Gandhi Nagar Pusta Side and as a result of overturning of RTV, he sustained injuries on his face and the other parts of his body. He further deposed that that other passengers were also injured and some of them were grievously injured. He further deposed that he was taken to the hospital in ambulance and other injured were also taken by the ambulance and PCR van. He further identified the accused correctly. PW1 was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused.
8. PW2 Shiv Kumar deposed that in the year 2003, he used to pursue a job at garment shop at Laxmi Nagar and on 03.09.2003, he had boarded RTV bus No. DL1VA1172 from ITO for going towards Laxmi Nagar. He further deposed that at about 10.00 am, when RTV reached at Chungi i.e. Pusta turn towards Gandhi Nagar, the driver of the RTV suddenly turned the RTV towards Pusta side while the RTV was still at speed about 80/90 KM/hour. He further deposed that the speed was high because of competition between rival RTV on road. He further deposed that due to sudden turning at the high speed the RTV Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:34:08 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.3/18 overturned. He further deposed that break was also applied by the driver but it could not control the RTV from overturning. He further deposed that his right hand was crushed by the supporting iron rod on the window due to overturning of the RTV and thereafter some persons came to his rescue. He further deposed that one of them was the person who had come to the court for giving evidence (he referred to PW1 Sateshwar). He further deposed that someone tied his shirt on the portion of his hand, which was injured due to crash. He further deposed that he was taken to the hospital and got treated there. He further deposed that he gave the complaint to the police and police recorded it. He further deposed that he put his thumb impression on the complaint because his right hand was badly injured. He further deposed that his complaint Ex. PW2/A bears his thumb impression at point A. He further identified the accused correctly. He further deposed that he had fracture in his right hand and steel rod was implanted by the doctors in the hospital. He further deposed that the incident occurred at 10.00 am so far he remembered and it did not occur at 10.00 pm. and he is sure for that. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. PW2 was crossexamined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused.
9. PW3 Rajesh Tripathi deposed that on 03.09.2003, he got into RTV bus No. DL1VA1172 from ITO and was going towards Laxmi Nagar. He further deposed that after crossing Jamuna River, there was a turn on the road and when the bus reached near the turn, the driver drove the vehicle at very high speed due to which the bus fell down on the turn and he sustained injuries especially on his head on back side and three other passengers were seriously injured and many of the passengers had sustained minor injuries. He further deposed that there was a red light chungi near the spot and also a Police post near the spot at that time. He further deposed that after the incident, he went to LBS hospital where his treatment was done. He further deposed that route no.
Digitally signed by
SONIKA
SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09
16:34:21 +0530
FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.4/18
of bus was F301. He further deposed that the accident took place due to the rash, negligent and the fast driving of the bus driver on turning point. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement. He further deposed that due to long lapse of time, he was unable to identify the accused driver. PW3 was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for accused.
10. PW4 Rajender Kumar deposed that on 30.09.2003, he was going to Laxmi Nagar from ITO in RTV bus route no.301 bearing No. DL1VA1172. He further deposed that there were some other passengers in aforesaid RTV. He further deposed that the bus was being driven at fast speed and in negligent manner by the driver and suddenly the driver took a turn towards Gandhi Nagar Pusta Road and the RTV overturned. He further deposed that he received injuries due to that. He further deposed that some other passengers also received injuries. He further deposed that after sometime, police officials came and took them to the hospital where his medical examination was conducted. He further deposed that his statement was recorded on the next day. He further deposed that he cannot identify the accused driver as the accused fled away from the spot and he was not able to see him. He further deposed that he cannot identify the RTV due to long lapse of time. As the witness resiled from his earlier statement, he was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State. PW4 was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity being given.
11. PW5 ASI Suraj Pal deposed that on 30.09.2003, he was posted at PS Shakarpur as HC and he was working as DO from 08.00 am to 04.00 pm and on that day at about 01.30 pm, Ct. Satpal handed over the rukka sent by HC Tejbir. He further deposed that on the basis of that rukka he registered the FIR no. 479/03 U/s 279/337 IPC. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he handed over the copy of FIR and the original rukka given to Ct. Satpal to be handed over to HC Tejbir for further action. He further deposed that the copy Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:34:33 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.5/18 of FIR is Ex.PW5/A bearing his signature at point A (OSR). He further deposed that his endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW5/B bearing his signature at point A. Witness was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity being given.
12. PW5A HC Satpal deposed that on 30.09.2003, he was posted as Constable at PS Shakarpur and on that day he was present on emergency duty w.e.f. 08.00 am to 08.00 pm. He further deposed that on that day HC Tejbir Singh received DD No. 13A regarding the accident and he alongwith HC Tejvir went to the spot i.e. police picket SP1, Laxmi Nagar, red light corner. He further deposed that on reaching the spot, they saw that a RTV bus bearing registration no. DL1VA1772 was lying overturned and the IO left him at the spot and went to LBS Hospital for the search of injured person. He further deposed that after some time, the IO came at the spot and prepared rukka on the statement of injured and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to PS and got the case registered. He further deposed that he came at the spot with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO and the IO recorded his statement in that regard. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan of the spot in his presence Ex.PW5/A which bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that the RTV bus was also taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that IO also seized the DL of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/C which also bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that he could identify the offending bus if shown to him. Witness was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity being given.
13. PW6 Abdul Gaffar deposed that he alongwith his family has been residing at H.No.113, Okhla Main market, Jamia Nagar, Delhi since childhood Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date:
2022.11.09FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.6/18 16:34:43 +0530 and he used to do private service at an electronic shop. He further deposed that on 01.10.2003 at about 10.30 / 10.45 am, he was going to Jheel Gandhi Nagar from ITO by an RTV but he did not remember the registration number of the said RTV. He further deposed that the driver of the RTV was driving bus at a very high speed and took a sudden turn towards Gandhi Nagar pusta and due to this reason RTV overturned and he received injuries with other passengers. He further deposed that PCR came at the spot and took all the injured to LBS hospital for treatment and police inquired from him and recorded his statement. He further deposed that driver of the offending vehicle was present in the Court that day (correctly identified), however, he do not remember the registration no. of the RTV. He further deposed that he boarded the RTV and accident took place near Laxmi Nagar turn pusta. As the witness had not disclosed the complete facts, he was crossexamined by Ld. APP for State. Witness was also crossexamined on behalf of the accused.
14. PW7 Dr. M.N. Singh deposed that on 30.09.2003, he was posted as Radiologist in LBS hospital and on that day, he had examined the XRay plate of a patient namely Shiv Kumar s/o Harswaroop and opined the nature of injuries sustained by him as "fracture lower and of right humerus" and his report in this regard was Ex.PW7/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that on the same day, he had also examined the Xray plate of patient namely Bijender Yadav, aged about 40 years and opined the nature of injuries sustained by the patient as "fracture shaft of right clavicle" and his report in this regard was Ex. PW7/B bearing his signature at point A. Witness was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity being given.
15. PW8 Pale Ram deposed that he is the permanent resident of H.No.210, Gali no.3, Roshan Vihar, Sharhadatpur, Karawal Nagar, Delhi and he is the registered owner of RTV Bus no. DL1VA1172. He further deposed that he Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:35:00 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.7/18 had received a notice from the IO of the case and pursuant to which he had replied in writing that on that day of incident on 30.09.2003, the driver was Mukesh Kumar (accused present in the Court) of his RTV, the same is Ex.PW8/A which bear his signature at point A. He further deposed that on next day he had produced the accused in the police station Shakarpur where the accused was arrested by the police vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/C both bear his signature at point A respectively. Witness was not crossexamined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity being given.
16. PW9 ASI Tejvir deposed that on 30.09.2003, he was posted as HC at PS Shakarpur and on that day, he was present in PS on day emergency duty during which at about10.30 am he received DD No.13A regarding an accident which taken place near a police picket SP1 Laxmi Nagar red light corner therefore, he alongwith Ct. Satpal immediately went to the spot. He further deposed that on reaching there he noticed that one RTV bus bearing registration no.DL1VA1172 was lying over turned. He further deposed that it came to know about the injured persons that PCR officials have shifted them to LBS Hospital and he immediately left for LBS hospital leaving Ct. Satpal at the spot for its safeguard. He further deposed that he collected MLC of injured Shiv Kumar, Rajesh Tripathi and Rajender Kumar, Vijender Yadav, Sateshwar and Abdul Gaffar. He further deposed that he met injured persons and made inquiries from them. He further deposed that he recorded statement of injured Shiv Kumar which was already Ex.PW2/A bearing his attesting signature at point X and he endorse the same vide his endorsement Ex.PW9/A which bears his signature at point X. He further deposed that he came at the spot and sent rukka to PS through Ct. Satpal for registration of FIR and he seized the aforesaid offending RTV bus vide seizure memo which was already Ex.PW5/B after Ct. Satpal came to him at the spot, same bears his signature at point X. He further deposed Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:35:18 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.8/18 that he inspected the spot and also prepared site plan of the same was already Ex.PW5/A which bears his signature at point X. He further deposed that he alongwith the offending vehicle and his staff came back to the PS and he deposited the offending vehicle with MHC (M). He further deposed that on 30.09.2003, he served a notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the registered owner of offending RTV Bus no. DL1VA1172 Ex.PW9/B which bears his signature at point X and on which the owner gave him in writing that on the date of alleged incident, the driver Mukesh Kumar was driving the offending RTV vide his note Ex.PW9/C and pursuant to his notice the owner of the offending vehicle produced the accused before him in PS and on having been satisfied, he arrested the accused in the present case vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/B and also conducted the personal search of the accused vide memo PW8/C all bear his signature at point X respectively. He further deposed that since the offences were bailable, the accused was released on police bail same time after his arrest and on the next day on 01.10.2003 the accused also gave him in writing vide note already Ex.PW8/A that on the day of alleged incident, accused was driving the aforesaid RTV Bus which was attested by him and bears his signature at point A. He further deposed that he seized the DL of accused vide seizure memo already Ex.PW5/C bearing his signature at point X and he had also seized the original RC and insurance of the offending RTV vide memo already Ex.PW5/B which bears his signature at point X. He further deposed that on the same day he got the offending RTV mechanically inspected vide his request Ex.PW9/D bearing his signature at point X and he deposited the MLCs of injured persons in hospital and obtained final result about the injuries sustained by injured persons and placed the same on record. He further deposed that on completion of his investigation, he prepared the chargesheet. He further correctly identified the accused. He further deposed that he could also identify the offending RTV bus if shown to him. PW9 was crossexamined at length by Ld. Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:35:28 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.9/18 Counsel for accused.
17. Thereafter, PE was closed v.o.d 31.08.2022. Statement of accused U/Sec. 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 11.10.2022 wherein accused pleaded false implication and denied all the incriminating evidence put to him stating that he is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged. He stated that some children from nearby Jhuggies had come on the road and ahead of his RTV. He further stated that in order to save their lives and to take side, the offending RTV overturned, as a result of which, some passengers received injuries. He further stated that whatever happened was under compelling circumstances and without negligence. Since, the accused did not opted to lead defence evidence, the matter was listed for final arguments.
18. It was argued by the Ld. APP for the State that the prosecution witnesses have successfully proved the factum of commission of offence by the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. He further stated that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and hence, the accused is liable to be convicted and punished as per law.
19. On the other hand, it was argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the accused was not driving the vehicle in a negligent manner and the incident occurred as 2 3 school boys suddenly came in front of the vehicle and in order to save them, the accused suddenly turned the vehicle. He prayed that the accused deserve to be acquitted in this case.
20. I have heard the arguments addressed by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused & have carefully perused the material available on record.
21. It is a settled legal principle that the prosecution has to prove its case Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:35:36 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.10/18 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts & has to stand upon its own legs. The burden of proof in a criminal trial always rests upon the prosecution & the same never shifts on the accused. In order to prove the charges against the accused prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. PW1, PW2, PW 3, PW4 and PW6 were the eyewitness to the incident as well as injured who were examined and the other PWs are police or formal witnesses.
22. Section 279 IPC provides penalty for rash driving or riding on a public way. It provides as follows:
"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".
23. Further, Section 337 IPC penalizes the act of causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. It provides as follows:
"Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".
24. Further, Section 338 IPC penalises the act of causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others. It provides as follows:
"Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person to doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:35:49 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.11/18 safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".
25. Accordingly, in order to establish the liability of the accused under Section 279 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the RTV bearing no. DL 1VA 1172 was involved in the alleged incident; that accused was driving the said vehicle on a public way; that the accused was driving the said 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.
26. Further, in order to establish the liability of the accused under Section 337 and section 338 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the injury/ grievous injury was caused due to the act of the driver/accused and that such act was rash or negligent.
27. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 categorically stated that on 30.09.2003 when they were travelling in RTV bearing No. DL 1V 1172, the driver took a sudden turn and the aforesaid RTV overturned. They had further deposed that the driver was driving the vehicle at a high speed. PW1 had categorically deposed that the RTV lost its balance and stuck against the pavement and thereafter, overturned. PW2 had further deposed that the speed of the RTV was high because of the competition with rival RTV on road. Also, the fact of occurrence of accident was not disputed by the accused.
28. PW1 and PW2 had identified the accused being the driver of the offending RTV on the day of incident. Even the accused had not disputed the fact of being the driver.
29. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the RTV bearing no.
Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09
16:36:10 +0530
FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.12/18
DL 1 VA 1172 was involved in the incident in question and that the said vehicle was being driven by the accused.
30. The testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and PW4, testified the fact that injured Sateshwar Giri, Shiv Kumar, Rajesh Tripathi, Rajender Kumar, Abdul Gaffar were travelling with the accused at the time of accident and suffered injuries in the said accident. Further, PW 7 Dr. M.N. Singh, Radiologist specifically deposed that on 30.09.2003, he examined Xray plate of Shiv Kumar and Bijender Yadav and opined that the nature of injuries sustained by them as 'fracture lower and right humorous' and 'fracture shaft of right clavicle'. Further, accused admitted MLCs of Bijender Yadav, Rajesh Tripathi, Rajender Kumar, Sateshwar and Abdul Gaffar (Ex.C1C5) wherein it was opined that Bijender Yadav and Rajender Kumar had suffered the grievous injuries and the remaining persons had suffered simple injuries.
31. Accordingly, the facts that the RTV bearing no. DL 1VA 1172 was involved in the alleged incident; that the accused was driving the alleged offending vehicle on a public way and that Rajesh Tripathi, Sateshwar and Abdul Gaffar suffered injuries and Bijender Yadav and Rajender Kumar suffered grievous injuries in the said incident are established.
32. Another important ingredient to be proved by the prosecution for securing the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279/337/338 IPC is that the injury is the direct result of the rash & negligent act of the accused. In Rathnashalvan vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 3 SCC 474, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:
"7. ........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 Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:36:19 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.13/18 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.
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."
33. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S. N. Hussain V. State of Andhara, AIR 1972 SC 685" as under: Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date:
2022.11.09 16:36:27 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.14/18 "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".
It has been further observed in S. N. Hussain (Supra) as under:
"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".
34. In the case in hand, PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6 deposed unequivocally that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in very high speed & rash manner even at the turning point. It was bounden duty of the driver of the vehicle to be extra cautions & careful while driving the same as he was required to take all necessary precautions while he was driving the vehicle & to ensure that his driving does not endanger the life of the persons present at the spot. The accused should have applied his breaks timely or slowed down the vehicle at least at the turn to avoid any overturning/accident. The very fact that the RTV driver/accused did not slow down the RTV at the turning point itself shows that the accused was negligent. As per the testimony of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6, the accused/driver was driving the offending RTV at a very high speed & in a rash manner, hence, the rashness & negligence on the part of the accused is implicit from the manner in which the RTV was being driven by him. The accused had taken the defence that some children came in front of his RTV and in the process of saving them, the RTV overturned. However, none of the witness/injured had supporting this versionsDigitally of thesigned by SONIKA SONIKA Date:
2022.11.09 16:36:34 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.15/18 accused, despite being crossexamined on behalf of the accused. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6, as their testimony is in sync with the other witnesses.
35. In support of its case, prosecution has also proved the MLC of injured Bijender Yadav, Rajesh Tripathi, Rajender Kumar, Sateshwar and Abdul Gaffar (Ex.C1C5). As noted above, the said documents were voluntarily admitted by the accused under Section 294 Cr.P.C., hence the examination of the concerned witnesses was dispensed with. It has been held in the case of "Shabbir Mohammad V. State of Rajasthan" (FB) (1996 Cr. L. J 1015) that:
"If the genuineness of any document produced by the prosecution or the accused is admitted by opposite party, when called upon to do so under subsection (3) of Section 294 of the Code, it can be read by the Court as a substantive piece of evidence for deciding the issue pending before it with its probative value being the same as it would have had it had been proved by the party concerned on its genuineness having disputed by the opposite party when called upon to do so under Subsection (1) of Section 294 of the code."
36. Further in "Boraiah @ Shekar Vs State" (2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal)
160), it has been held that:
"Section 294 Cr.P.C dispensed with proof of every document when it becomes formal on its genuineness not being disputed. Sub section (3) of Section 294 Cr.P.C. covers postmortem reports and every other document of which genuineness is not disputed. Once the requirements of Section 294 are fulfilled, there could be no difficulty in treating such document as substantive evidence in the case. In fact after indication of no dispute as to the genuineness of Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:36:42 +0530 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.16/18 a document, proof of document is reduced to a sheer empty formality.
Such a document may be read in evidence under subsection (3) of Section 294. Neither the signature nor the correctness of its contents need to be proved by the prosecution or the accused by examining its signatory as it is admitted to be true or correct. The phrase 'read in evidence' means read as substantive evidence, which is the evidence adduced to prove a fact in issue as opposed to the evidence used to discredit a witness or to corroborate his testimony."
37. Also in "Akhtar Vs State of Uttranchal" (SC 2009(2) AICLR745), it has been held that:
"If the accused had admitted the injury reports and postmortem reports under Section 294 Cr.P.C. He cannot later contend that the said documents cannot be read into substantial evidence due to nonexamination of doctors, and the said document shall be read as valid and substantive evidence under Section 294 Cr.P.C."
38. As per MLC Ex. C1C5, Rajesh Tripathi, Sateshwar and Abdul Gaffar suffered simple blunt and Bijender Yadav and Rajender Kumar suffered grievous blunt. Also, as per the said MLCs, the injured persons were taken to hospital by police personnels which further corroborates the version of the prosecution that after the accident the injured persons were taken to hospital for medical treatment by the police personnels. Nothing to the contrary could be elicited from the PWs during crossexamination.
39. Therefore, it is evident from the abovementioned discussion, testimony Digitally signed by SONIKA SONIKA Date:
2022.11.09 16:36:50 +0530FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.17/18 of prosecution's witnesses and MLCs on record that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and the RTV overturned causing injuries to its passengers and hence all the ingredients of Section 279, 337, 338 IPC have been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Mukesh Shukla stands convicted for offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 337 and 338 IPC.Digitally signed by SONIKA
SONIKA Date:
2022.11.09
16:36:59
+0530
Pronounced in the open court ( SONIKA)
on 09th Day of November 2022 MM04/East/KKD/Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 18 pages & each page is Digitally signed by SONIKA checked & signed by me. SONIKA Date: 2022.11.09 16:37:06 +0530 ( SONIKA) MM04/East/KKD/Delhi 09.11.2022 FIR No.479/2003 State Vs. Mukesh Shukla page no.18/18