Delhi District Court
State vs . Harpreet Singh on 24 February, 2011
State vs. Harpreet Singh
IN THE COURT OF SH DHARMENDER RANA
Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Delhi
State Vs. Harpreet Singh
FIR N0. : 457/02
U/S : 279/338 IPC
PS : Rajouri Garden
J U D G M E N T ;
a) Sl. No. of the case : 2423/2
b) Date of commission of offence: 25.06.2002
c) Date of institution of the case : 28.09.2002
d) Name of the complainant : Sh. Vijay Singh
e) Name & address of the : Harpreet Singh s/o
accused Sh. Hardev Singh
R/o B106,107, Chaukhandi
Delhi
f) Offence complained off : 279/338 IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
h) Arguments heard on : 24.02.2011
i) Final order : Acquitted
j) Date of Judgment : 24.02.2011
FIR No.457/02 1
State vs. Harpreet Singh
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1.Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.06.2002 at about 10:00 p.m. on the road near Shiv Mandir, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Rajouri Garden accused Harpreet Singh was driving a scooter bearing registration no. DL4SN2645 on a public way in rash and negligent manner and subsequently struck against one Sh. Vijay Singh and caused grievous injuries upon his person and thus has been sent to face trial for offences U/s 279/338 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused was consequently summoned. A formal notice for the offence U/s 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused on 20.02.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
4. PW1; HC Nahar Singh is the MHCM who has proved relevant entries in register no. 19. He has proved the entry no. 5067 in Register no. 19 Ex. P1.
FIR No.457/02 2
5. PW2; Ct. Balram is a police official who accompanied the IO to the spot. He has deposed that injured had already been shifted to DDU hospital and was found admitted in the hospital. He has deposed that IO carried out all the investigations in his presence. He further deposed that on the instructions of the IO he got registered the FIR in the instant matter.
6. PW3; Sh. Sandeep Malik is the owner of offending scooter. He has proved reply to notice U/s 133 M.V. Act vide Ex. PW3/A,. He has also proved seizure memo of RC Ex. PW3/B, Seizure memo of offending scooter Ex. PW3/C and superdiginama Ex. PW3/D.
7. PW4; ASI Bal Kishan is the Duty Officer who has registered FIR Ex. PW4/A in the instant matter on the basis of rukka sent by SI Rajbir.
8. PW5; Sh. Raj Kumar is an eyewitness to the alleged accident. He has deposed against the accused that accused was driving the scooter at a fast speed of 6070 kmph. He has deposed against the accused that due to rash and negligent act of accused, FIR No.457/02 3 State vs. Harpreet Singh injured Vijay Singh sustained grievous injuries.
9. PW6; Ms. Jagjit Kaur is record clerk from DDU Hospital, who has proved the report of Dr. Kulachandra Singh who examined the injured Vijay. She has proved Xray report of injured Ex. PW6/A.
10. PW7; Dr. Atam Prakash has proved the MLC of injured Vijay Ex. PW7/A.
11. Upon completion of P.E., statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded on 24.02.2011 wherein accused has refuted the allegation levelled against him in toto.
12. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record.
13. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused. FIR No.457/02 4
14. In the instant case the sole eyewitness Sh. Raj Kumar (PW5) has simply deposed that " On 25.06.202, Vijay Singh was coming back after he had gone to the Shiv Mandir and while he was crossing the road in front of temple and and Sajan Band he was hit by a scooterist. It was around 10:00 p.m Vijay Singh fell down along with the scooterist. I ran to the spot along with other persons and Vijay Singh was lifted. The number of the scooter was DL4SN2645. The scooter was driven by some Sardar person. There at the spot some Sardar persons assembled. I identify the accused present in the Court today as the same person who was driving the scooter on the date of incident and who hit the Vijay Kumar while driving the scooter. Somebody called the police. The accused slipped away from the spot by concealing himself among the other Sardar persons along with his scooter. The injured was taken to DDU hospital by the PCR Van. I showed the police the spot of accident and Site plan was prepared by the police. The accident was caused due to high speed of the scooter which was being driven at 60 to 70 km per hour and due to negligence of the rider of the scooter."
15. The eyewitness has testified that the accident was caused due to rashness and negligence of the accused as the scooter was being driven by him at a speed of 6070 kmph.
In my considered opinion, speed in itself is a very subjective term and simply because the scooter was being driven at a high speed that in itself is not a conclusive proof of indictable rashness or negligence. The time of the accident was reportedly FIR No.457/02 5 State vs. Harpreet Singh 10:00 p.m in the night. The prosecution has failed to throw any light regarding conditions at the spot of the accident at the pertinent point of time. Even the Site plan remains unproved. The complainant/ injured Vijay Singh could not be examined on behalf of the prosecution as he was reportedly untraceable. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that it would not be safe to convict the accused upon the sole allegation of driving the scooter at a fast speed.
16. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abdul Subhan v. State 2007 Cri. L. J. 1089 that "12. The present case is on a similar footing. Apart from the allegation of having driven the truck at a highspeed, which itself is an unclear expression, there is nothing on record to establish that the petitioner drove the vehicle rashly and/or negligently or did any act which would amount to a rash and/or negligent act. Clearly, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to be convicted under the provisions of Section 279 and 304A, IPC. The Courts below have committed a grave error in convicting the petitioner and this error needs to be corrected in revision. The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal." FIR No.457/02 6
17. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove that on 25.06.2002, accused Harpreet Singh was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and injured Vijay Singh sustained injuries on account of rashness and negligence of accused. Accused stands acquitted for the charges U/s 279/338 IPC levelled against him. Ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court
on 24.02.2011 (Dharmender Rana)
MM/Delhi /24.02.2011
FIR No.457/02 7