Delhi District Court
State vs . : Deepak Kumar on 14 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 07, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs. : Deepak Kumar
FIR No. : 253/13
U/s. : 279/304A/468/471 IPC
PS : Kotla Mubarakpur
a The Sl. No. of the case : 89183/16
b The date of commission : 13.09.2013
c The date of Institution of the case : 07.05.2014
d The name of complainant : Sushil Kumar s/o Sh.
Nankau
e The name of accused : Deepak Kumar
s/o Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma
R/o H. No. 637, Gali no. 11,
Sector - 9, Shivpuri, Vijay
Nagar, Ghaziabad
Permanent r/o Village
Lohgarh, Tehsil Athroli
District Aligarh, UP.
f The offence complained of : 279/304A/468/471 IPC
g Charges framed under section : 279/304A/471/474 IPC
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 14.09.2018
i The final order qua accused : Acquitted u/s. 279/304
A/471 IPC and
Convicted u/s.474 IPC
j The date of judgment : 14.09.2018
JUDGMENT
1 Accused Deepak Kumar has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 13.09.2013 between 12:05 midnight to 12:20 am near INA Metro Station within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, he was found driving a vehicle i.e. TATA Safari bearing registration No. UP 14BS 7771 FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 1 of 11 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others and thereby committed offence made punishable u/s. 279 IPC. It is further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused struck against one person namely Sukhai and the accused by his act caused the death of the said person not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby committed an offence made punishable u/s. 304A IPC. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that on the aforesaid date, time and place while driving the aforesaid vehicle the accused fraudulently or dishonestly used the forged driving license as genuine which he knew or had reasons to believe the same to be forged and for using the said license as well as for possessing the same, accused was alleged to have committed offences made punishable u/s 471/474 IPC. The IO after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet before this court.
2 It may be noted that initially the FIR in this case was filed u/s. 279/304A/468/471 IPC. Thereafter at the time of framing of charges, charge u/s. 468 IPC was dropped and charge u/s. 474 was added. Thus, charge u/s. 279/304A/471/474 IPC were eventually framed upon the accused for commission of the aforesaid offences to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 Prosecution has examined the following witnesses in support of its case:
FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 2 of 11Sr. Witness Nature of deposition/documents produced/proved No. Description 1 PW1 Documents produced/proved:
Sushil Kumar A. Complaint Ex. PW1/A B. Site plan Ex.PW1/B C. Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW1/C He is complainant in this case. He deposed that on 13.09.2013, his uncle namely Sukhoi was crossing the road and going towards the grill on the central verge of the road for taking a cloth from the said grill. As per this witness, his uncle had signaled a vehicle i.e. TATA Safari bearing no. UP 14BS 7771. He further deposed that the said car (which was coming from the side of flyover towards India Gate and going towards AIIMS hospital) had hit his said uncle. He further stated that due to the said hitting, his uncle fell down on the road and sustained injuries. As per him, after this accident, the driver alongwith his vehicle had run away from the spot but was stopped at the picket by the police. As per this witness, he took his uncle to Safdarjung hospital for medical examination where on the next day of incident, his uncle died. Thereafter, police took him to PS and recorded his statement. As per this witness, the vehicle in question was being driven at a very high speed and was driven by the accused herein.
02 photographs of the offending vehicle were shown to the witness which he identified as the offending vehicle. The same were exhibited as Ex.P1 (collectively).
2 PW2 HC Documents produced/proved:
Tej Veer
Singh A. Seizure memo of vehicle i.e. TATA Safari bearing
FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 3 of 11
no. UP 14BS 7771 Ex.PW2/A.
B. Personal search memo of accused Ex.PW2/B. This witness was on picket duty at INA Market on 13.09.2013 from 8 pm to 8 am with Ct. Naveen and Ct. Sandeep and checking the vehicles at the said picket. This witness claimed that he saw a vehicle i.e. TATA Safari bearing no. UP 14BS 7771 white colour coming from the side of Safdarjung airport at a very high speed and going towards AIIMS hospital.
As per this witness, he heard noise from there as someone was shouting "ki es gaddin ne takar mar di". He thereafter stopped the aforesaid vehicle and somebody called 100 number. He thereafter told IO / SI Vikas Rana that the injured was shifted to hospital and he handed over the accused alongwith vehicle to the said IO. IO thereafter seized the said vehicle and conducted his personal search. IO thereafter recorded his statement.
3 PW3 Rtd. Documents produced/proved:
SI Raj
Kapoor A. Report regarding verification of DL of the accused
Mark PW3/A.
B. Arrest memo of accused Ex.PW3/A
C. Bail bond of accused Ex.PW3/C
D. Application for verification of DL of accused Ex.PW3/D. As per this witness, the present case file was handed over to him for further investigation. He deposed that he got verified the DL, RC and insurance of offending vehicle bearing no. UP 14BS 7771 and except DL, he found both the said documents as genuine. He further claimed that on verification of DL of the accused was found to be forged.
He is the second IO of the case and had also carried FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 4 of 11 out further investigation of the case.
4 PW4 Documents produced/proved:
Mohd. Salim
A. Copy of register entry Ex.PW4/A (OSR).
B. Authorization letter Ex.PW4/B.
C. Attested copy of record as per which a fresh
license was issued in favour of Manoj Kumar Singh in lieu of his old license Ex.PW4/C. This witness was summoned from RTO, Aligarh with record of license bearing no. 34316/A1/08 dated 07.03.2008. As per the testimony of this witness, the aforesaid license was issued in the name of one Manoj Kumar Singh and was never issued in the name of the accused herein.
It may be noted that this witness was shown the purported forged license Ex.P1 (hereinafter called as forged license). After seeing the same and comparing it with his record, this witness claimed that the license shown to him was never issued from RTO, Aligarh in favour of the accused.
5 PW5 Documents produced/proved:
SI Vikas
Rana A. Rukka Ex. PW5/A
B. Seizure memo of documents i.e. R/C, insurance and DL of accused Ex.PW5/B This witness has also relied upon documents which were already exhibited as Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW2/B, Ex.PW2/A. He is the IO of the case who carried out the investigation in the case.
FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 5 of 11 6 PW6 Rahul Documents produced/proved:
Yadav
A. Superdarinama of the aforementioned vehicle Ex.PW6/A (running into 02 pages).
This witness was the registered owner of the vehicle in question. He deposed that the accused / driver was driving the vehicle on the day of incident.
He identified the accused who was present in the court as his driver.
Documents admitted by the accused:
A. FIR (without contents) Ex. PA1 B. Mechanical inspection report of vehicle bearing no. UP 14BS 7771 Ex.PA2 C. MLC(s) bearing no. C / 188905 of injured / Sukhai dated 13.09.2013 Ex.PA3 D. Death report of Sukhai dated 13.09.2013 Ex.PA4 E. PM report bearing no. 122613 of Sukhai (without admitting contents thereof) Ex.PA5 4 After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C in which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not avail the opportunity to lead defence evidence. Hence matter reached the stage of final arguments.
5 Final arguments heard. Record perused. 6 The accused has faced trial for offences made punishable u/s.
279/304A/471/474 IPC. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused herein had struck Mr. Sukhai with his car bearing no. UP 14BS 7771 at a FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 6 of 11 very high speed leading to the death of the accused on the next day of the accident.
7 Before an accused can be convicted u/s. 279/304A IPC, it is for the prosecution to show that the vehicle in question was being driven in a rash or negligent manner by the said accused. In the present case, as per the testimony of PW1, the victim was crossing the road on 13.09.2013 at about 12:00 midnight. As per witness PW1, when the victim was trying to reach a cloth put on the grill of the central verge of the road, the aforesaid car, which was being driven by the accused at a very high speed, struck the said victim. Neither in the evidence of PW1 nor in the investigation, it has come on record as to at what speed was the car in question being driven. It may be noted that the speed of the car shall become relevant because in a congested locality, even a slow moving motor vehicle can be said to be rashly or negligently driven. Conversely on a highway or a multi lane road even a fast moving motor vehicle cannot be said to be rashly or negligently driven if the same is driven within the speed limits prescribed in law. In the present case, nothing has come on record to conclude as to whether the car in question was being driven on a congested road or on a highway or on a multi lane road. No photographs are on record so as to allow this court to form an opinion as to whether the so called car, if driven at a high speed, can be said, by itself, to be a rash or negligent act on part of the accused. The site plan Ex.PW1/B placed as well as the photographs of the scene of incident are of no assistance. As far as site plan is concerned, it simply states the width of the road where the accident took place as 30 feet but does not give the number of lanes of vehicles on the said road. On the other hand, the photographs of the spot FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 7 of 11 are not even clear or does not give an idea of the width of the road or the surrounding establishments in the area for this court to see whether the spot where the accident took place is a congested area or not. It is also not clear from the site plan or from the evidence placed on record as to whether the area was a well lit area or otherwise to see whether the victim herein or the accused herein could have seen each other from some distance or not.
8 Simply put, on the bald assertion of the witness that the said car was driven at a very high speed, in my humble opinion, it is not sufficient to make the act of the accused rash or negligent to bring the same within the meaning of section 279/304A IPC. In my opinion, it was for the prosecution to show whether the speed of the car was such that the same by itself, considering the location and spot of the incident and the surrounding circumstances, would amount to a rash and negligent act. There is no such evidence on record in this regard.
9 Yet again, as per the evidence of PW1, the victim was trying to cross the road and go towards the central verge when the accident took place. As per record, it appears that there was no red light or zebra crossing at that spot. Infact, as per testimony of PW1, victim was trying to cross the road and go to the central verge in the middle of the night to take a cloth from the grill. Now, there is possibility that the area was not a well lit area which could have made it possible for the accused herein to see the victim. If that be the case, in my opinion, accused herein cannot be said to have acted in a rash or negligent manner within the meaning of section 279/304A IPC. If I take the testimony of PW1 is correct, victim had FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 8 of 11 placed his cloth on a grill of the central verge of the road. Needless to say, grill of the central verge of the road is not a place for putting clothes and infact there is a possibility that such clothes may (due to wind) be displaced from the said grill and land on the vehicles / bodies of motor vehicles / drivers of two wheelers passing through the road and can lead to serious accident. It appears that the victim himself had placed his cloth on the grill of the central verge where he should not have done so. Be that as it may, in my opinion, nothing has come on record to attribute some act or omission on the part of the accused to call the same to be rash or negligent on his part.
10 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, merely because an unfortunate accident took place, which led to the death of the victim, it cannot mean that the accused herein had committed any rash or negligent act within the meaning of section 279/304A IPC. From the evidence on record, no rashness or negligence on the part of the accused has been brought out to call for application of the aforesaid provisions. Accordingly, in my humble opinion, accused is entitled to be acquitted for offences made punishable u/s. 279/304A IPC in the present case. It is ordered accordingly.
11 As far as offence made punishable u/s. 471 IPC is concerned, the purported forged license was recovered from the accused when his personal search was conducted. In other words, accused never showed his forged license to any person / official claiming that on the basis of the said license he is entitled to drive the vehicle. Thus, in my opinion, accused cannot be said to have used the said forged license within the meaning of FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 9 of 11 section 471 IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the charge u/s. 471 IPC.
12 As far as offence made punishable u/s. 474 IPC is concerned, as already noted, the forged license was recovered on the personal search of the accused. Now, it has come in the testimony of PW4 / Md. Salim that the license bearing no. 34316/Aligarh/07 issued on 14.03.2007 Ex.P1 was not issued from RTO, Aligarh. The actual license which was issued against the said number i.e. 34316 was issued to one Manoj Kumar Singh on 07.03.2008 and no such license was issued to the accused herein. Thus, it has been shown on record from the evidence of PW4 / Md. Salim that Ex.P1 was actually a forged license and was found in possession of the accused herein.
13 Since the forged license Ex.P1 was never issued from RTO, Aligarh though the same claims to have been issued from RTO, Aligarh, the same is a forged document within the meaning of section 466 IPC as the said document was never made by a public servant i.e. RTO, Aligarh in his official capacity. The same having been found in possession of the accused herein, with no explanation as to why the accused was in possession thereof, the same clearly shows that the accused intended to dishonestly used the same as genuine if given a chance. In my opinion, a driving license is a document which is produced on various occasions especially before traffic personnel as and when a vehicle is flagged down by them for checking. The nature of document i.e. Ex.P1 herein is such that the same may be taken to have been possessed for being shown to be used as a genuine driving license by the accused herein on the eventuality of the accused being flagged down while driving a motor vehicle by the FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 10 of 11 traffic personnel. The nature of the document and the facts and circumstances of the case show that the accused knew that that the said document is a forged document and could be used by him for fooling the traffic personnel. This fact is fortified from the fact that infact eventually accused had produced one DL also issued from RTO, Aligarh which was found to be genuine (see Ex.PW3/B which is a seizure memo of original driving license of accused issued on 27.03.2008). Thus, even though the accused had an original driving license issued from RTO, Aligarh still he possessed a forged driving license knowing fully well that the same is a forged document.
14 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, accused was in possession of a forged driving license Ex.P1 which he knew to be a forged document and also intended to use as and when the need arose. Thus all the ingredients of section 474 IPC are complete. Accordingly, accused is convicted for offence made punishable u/s. 474 IPC.
15 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, accused is acquitted for offences made punishable u/s. 279/304A/471 IPC in the present case. He is convicted for offence made punishable u/s. 474 IPC.
16 Let the accused be heard on quantum of sentence.Digitally signed
AASHISH by AASHISH GUPTA GUPTA Date: 2018.09.15 Announced in the Open Aashish Gupta 16:07:06 +0530 th Court on 14 day of September, 2018 MM(South East)07 Saket, New Delhi FIR No. 253/13 State V/s. Deepak Kumar Page 11 of 11