Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/433653/2016 on 13 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. PURVA SAREEN,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
SOUTH WEST, DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
State v. Same Singh
FIR No.215/15
PS Dwarka Sector 23
U/s 279/337 IPC & 185 MV Act
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 19.11.2016
Date of Commission of offence : 17.06.2015
Name of the complainant : Amitendra Singh S/o Sh. A. N. Singh
Name & address of the accused : Same Singh S/o Sh. Ram Prasad
R/o Village Gohana, PS Badli,
PO & Disttt Jhajjar, Haryana
Offence complained of : U/s 279/337 IPC & 185 MV Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of reserve for judgment : 31.07.2018
Date of announcing of judgment : 13.08.2018
Vide virtue of this judgment I propose to dispose off the case u/s 279/337 IPC & 185 MV Act.
In brief the case of prosecution is as under:-
1) That on 17.06.2015 at about 6.20 am Near CNG Pump Station on the road between Sector 8 Metro Station and Welcome Hotel, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Dwarka Sector 23, accused Same Singh was found driving bus bearing registration no.DL-1PB-1828 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving hit against one car bearing no.HR-26AC-5156 which State v. Same Singh Page 1 FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment caused simple injuries to Amitendra Singh and he was found driving the said vehicle under a state of intoxication and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279/337 IPC & 185 MV Act.
2) The charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter notice was served upon the accused u/s 279/337 IPC & 185 MV Act to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3) In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses as under :-
(I) PW1 Pooran Chand proved the mechanical inspection report of both the vehicle vide memo Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
(II) PW2 ASI Nirmala was duty officer who proved the FIR vide memo Ex.PW2/A and endorsement vide memo Ex.PW2/B. She also proved the certificate u/s 65 IE Act vide memo Ex.PW2/C. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
(III) Dr. Vinay Kumar Pandey was CMO of ARTEMIS Hospital who proved the MLC of injured Amitendra Singh vide memo Ex.PW3/A. In his cross examination by learned counsel for accused, witness stated that he did not have personal knowledge of the case. Witness further said that injuries can be suffered in daily course also. The swelling over right clevical is an injury usually suffered in road traffic accident or in case of physical assault.
State v. Same Singh Page 2
FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment
(IV) Dr. Vinal was SMO from DDU Hospital who proved ME NO.9366/15 vide memo Ex.PW4/A. In his cross examination by learned counsel for accused, witness stated that alcohol level was measured by breath analyzer technique by the machine.
(V) PW5 Amitendra Singh was complainant who deposed before the court that on 17.06.2015 he was returning from his shift at about 5.00 pm in his car Ford Ikon bearing registration no.HR-26AC-5156. After crossing the CNG Petrol Pump on the road from Sector 8 Metro Station towards Welcome Hotel, Sector 10 Dwarka, there was one cut on the right hand side and he spotted a bus coming. The divider on this road was broken at that time and he saw the bus coming through the divider and the bus driver hit the right hand side of his car with the front left wheel/side of the bus. His car got damaged and he also received internal chest injuries due to the impact. He called the police. The bus driver did not run away and remained at the spot whose name was revealed as Same Singh. Ct. Hukum Singh came at the spot and after seeing the situation IO Rajesh Bosh took both the injured and accused to the hospital for getting the medical conducted.
SI Rajesh Bosh recorded his statement. FIR was registered on the evening of the same day and both the vehicles were seized by the IO.
In his cross examination by learned counsel for accused, witness stated that accident occurred between 5.30 AM and 6.00 AM. He was driving at a speed of 60-70 KMPH. He was in correct lane. Witness denied that the bus took a turn first and his car hit the bus on the back side or that he deposed falsely in order to implicate the accused. His car was insured.
State v. Same Singh Page 3
FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment
Bus was fast. He was taken to ARTEMIS Hospital.
(VI) PW6 Hanumant was owner of vehicle no.DL-1PB-1828 who stated before the court that he handed over relevant documents to Shripal at the time of selling of bus but the same could not be transferred and proved the agreement to sell vide Mark X and proved the panchnama vide memo Ex.PW6/A. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
(VII) PW7 Sripal Thakur was superdar of the bus bearing no.DL-1PB-1828 who also proved the panchanama vide memo Ex.PW6/A. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
(VIII) PW8 HC Rameshwar brought the original register no.19 containing relevant entry vide which IO SI Rajesh had deposited the offending vehicle and car which were later on released on superdari and proved the said entry vide memo Ex.PW8/A. Accused did not prefer to cross examine the witness.
(IX) PW9 Inspector Rajesh Kumar Bosh deposed before the court that on 17.06.2015 he received DD No.5A regarding an accident. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Hukum proceed to the spot. They reached at the spot where one Ford Icon and one Bus were standing in accidental condition. Injured Amitender Singh met them. Accused Same Singh was also at the spot. Thereafter, he left Ct. Hukum at the spot with the accused and went to ARTEIMS Hospital where the medical of complainant was got conducted. Statement of complainant was recorded and tehrir was prepared. He went State v. Same Singh Page 4 FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment back to the spot and handed over the tehrir to Ct. Hukum for getting the case registered. Thereafter, Ct. Hukum came back after getting the FIR registered alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He prepared site plan, arrested the accused and seized both the vehicles and also seized the RC, Permit, Fitness and Insurance of the offending vehicle. Medical of accused was also got conducted in DDU Hospital. He seized the DL of accused. Section 185 MV Act was also added in the case after obtaining MLC. Vehicles were got deposited in the Malkhana of PS. As the offence was bailable, the accused was released on bail. On 18.06.2015, he got conducted the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles and obtained the mechanical inspection report. He also got verified all the documents of the offending vehicle. Both the vehicles were released and panchnama was prepared. Photographs of both the vehicles were taken at the time of release. Thereafter, notice u/s 133 MV Act was given to owner of offending vehicle who gave his reply that he had already sold the vehicle to Sri Pal Thakur. Then, he gave notice to Sri Pal Thakur who replied that on the date of incident the accused was driving the vehicle and one agreement was given to him regarding agreement to sell of the bus and also Form 29 & Form 30. He recorded the supplementary statements of complainant, Ct. Hukum, Mechanical Inspector, Hanumant and Sri Pal Thakur. Thereafter, charge sheet was prepared and filed in Court.
In his cross examination by learned counsel for accused, witness stated that he reached at the spot 17.06.2015 at about 06.20 am. Ct.Hukam was with him. The number of car (Ford Icon) was HR-26 .... and of Bus was DL-1PB ..... but he did not remember the complete number of both the vehicles. At the time of examination of complainant by doctor, the State v. Same Singh Page 5 FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment injuries were opined as simple. He wrote the complaint. He had received original rukka and a copy of FIR. People were present at the spot but none was an eye witness except the complainant. Site plan was prepared by him at the instance of complainant. Witness denied that the accident took place due to rash driving of car/complainant. Inquiry was made from the accused on the spot itself but the same was not reduced in writing.
(x) PW10 HC Hukum Chand deposed before the court that on the intervening night of 16/17.06.2015 he alongwith SI Rajesh Bosh on receiving call of accident reached at the spot i.e. near CNG Pump station Section 9, Dwarka where they saw one car and one bus in accidental condition. Registration number of car was HR26AC5166 and bus was DL1LB1828. SI Rajesh left him at the spot and came back after sometime and handed over tehrir. He went to PS, get the FIR registered and came back to the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, IO conducted the seizure proceedings and car and bus were seized.
In his cross examination by learned counsel for accused, witness stated that call was received regarding accident at 07:00 am. He was with SI Rajesh Bosh. SI Rajesh Bosh had prepared the documents which he had signed. Documents were prepared at the spot. There were around 2-3 seizure memos on which he signed. IO had seized the vehicles.
4) Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed. Statement of accused was recorded to which accused did not lead any evidence in his defence. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
5) Ld. APP for the State has argued that rash and negligent driving of the State v. Same Singh Page 6 FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment accused has been proved by witnesses and documents placed on record. Injury has been duly proved by way of MLC placed on record.
6) I have heard the arguments addressed by the prosecution and counsel for the accused. I have gone through the documents on record and heard the contention of both the parties. I have come to the following observations:-
7) After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I have come to the following observations:
The accused has been charged u/s 279/337 IPC r/w Section 185 MV Act.
As per Section 279 IPC, 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.
As per section 337 IPC, whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or 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.
The main requirements to be proved are:
(a) hurt is caused;
(b) the act should be so rash and negligent that it endangers human life or personal safety of others.
(I) In the present case, both the facts have been duly proved. The State v. Same Singh Page 7 FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment injuries upon the victim have also been duly proved. (II) As far as the fact of rashness and negligence is concerned, it is clear from the evidence of PW5 who is injured himself that the bus came through the divider and hit the right side of the car of complainant/injured and he received simple injuries as a result of the same.
As far as the identity of the accused is concerned, the same has been duly established by injured, who has duly identified the accused in the Court. The identity of the vehicle has also been duly proved.
The present case is based on the principle of res ispa loquitor which means that negligence can be inferred from the very nature of the accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any accident happened.
It has been stated by the complainant that when he crossed Sector 8 Metro Station, there was one cut on right hand side and he spotted a bus coming through the broken divider and his the right hand side of his car. The facts stated by the injured are sufficient to prove the negligence of the accused as there was no reason for a prudent driver to drive in such a manner that bus would get going through the divider and hit into the car of the complainant/injured. The facts of the case practically show that there was negligence on the part of the accused and nothing further remained to be proved.
The present facts also show application of the legal maxim ipsa loquitor which shows that fact speaks for themselves.
8) In Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras (1957 SCR 981) the Hon'ble Supreme Court is Court had divided the nature of witnesses in three categories, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and lastly, neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. The first two categories they pose little State v. Same Singh Page 8 FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment difficulty but in the case of the third category of witnesses, corroboration would be required. It is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
i) Wholly reliable.
ii) Wholly unreliable.
iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
9) In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses.
10) Vadivelu Thevar case (supra) was referred to with approval in Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the State v. Same Singh Page 9 FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment Evidence Act'). But, if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material.
The time-honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise."
11) The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 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".
12)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".
13)Further, MLC bearing no.9366 dated 17.06.2015 having time at 11.08 am in respect of accused Same Singh clearly shows that accused was under
intoxicated condition while driving the offending vehicle at the and time of offence i.e. 06.20 am on the date of offence itself i.e. 17.06.2015 and same State v. Same Singh Page 10 FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment fact has been duly proved by PW4 Dr. Vinal vide MLC Ex.PW4/A.
14) Hence, in view of above discussion, I draw the inference that when the factum of rashness and negligence has been duly proved and the injuries are also not in dispute and further the identity of the accused is also established convincingly, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt u/s 279/337 IPC r/w Section 185 MV Act.
15) Accordingly, accused Same Singh stands convicted u/s 279/337 IPC r/w Section 185 MV Act.
16) Now to come up for arguments on sentence on 27.08.2018.
Announced in the open court (PURVA SAREEN)
on 13th August 2018 ACMM/SOUTH WEST/DWARKA COURTS
NEW DELHI
Digitally signed
by PURVA
PURVA SAREEN
SAREEN Date:
2018.08.14
15:16:57 +0530
State v. Same Singh Page 11
FIR No.215/15, PS Dwarka Sec 23 Judgment