Delhi District Court
State vs Guru Charan Singh on 30 June, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDESH KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NEW DELHI DISTRICT:
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: DELHI
FIR NO.: 329 of 2002
POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI
U/S: 279/338 IPC
IN THE MATTER OF
STATE
VS.
GURU CHARAN SINGH
S/o Mr. Kabal Singh
R/o E56 A, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
Date of institution:15.12.2003
Date of reserving judgement/Order:20.05.2011
Date of Pronouncement of Judgement/Order:30.06.2011
Brief statement of reasons for such decisions :
1.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.12.2002 in front of Diplomat Hotel, S.P. Marg near Red Light, New Delhi, the accused while driving his ambassador car no. DEA 135 in a rash and negligent manner struck against one scooter FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 1 of 16 no. DL 9SD 4487 and one car no. DL 9CA 4242 and caused grievous injuries on the person of Mr. Vijay Kumar and thereby committed offences U/s 279/338 IPC for which, the present chargesheet was filed against him. On the basis of record, cognizance was taken and the accused was summoned.
2. After supplying of copies, a notice U/s 251 Cr. PC for offences U/s 279/338 IPC was settled against accused on 26.03.2004 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses in total.
(i) Mr. T.U. Siddiqui, Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as PW 1 who has proved on record the mechanical inspection of vehicles involved in the accident and the same were Ex. PW 1/A, Ex. PW 1/B, Ex. PW 1/C, Ex. PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/E. The witness also identified his signatures at point A on all the reports.
The witness was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity being given .
(ii) ASI Joginder Singh, Duty Officer has been examined as PW 2. The witness proved the present FIR No. 329/02 as Ex. PW 2/A and he also identified his signatures at Point A. The witness was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity being given .
(iii) SI Girish Chandra was examined as PW 3. PW 3 deposed that on 16.04.2003 while he was posted as SI at PS Chanakaya Puri, further investigation of the FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 2 of 16 present case was assigned to him. He further deposed that he had collected the MLC and presented the same for trial.
The witness was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity being given .
(iv) Ct. Rajender Singh was examined as PW 4. He deposed that on 17.12.2002, he was posted as constable at PS Chanakaya Puri and on receipt of call at about 8.30 PM, he alongwith ASI Deena Nath Tiwari had gone to S.P. Marg, opposite Diplomat Hotel, Red Light signal at Kautilya Marg where they found five vehicles in accidental conditions namely two ambassador cars, two maruti cars and two wheeler scooter. This witness was deputed at the spot and no one else was available at the spot. He proceeded to hospital and on returning back, IO could not find any witness and he prepared a rukka to which the witness took to the police station and got registered the case FIR No. 329/02. He seized the vehicles vide seizure memos Ex. PW 4/A, B, C,D and E. One witness Mr. Vijay Verma joined and he named driver of the offending vehicle as Gurucharan Singh. Thereafter, notices were issued to owner of offending vehicle and on 18.12.2002, accused was produced by its owner and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW 4/F. This witness proved the personal search memo of accused Ex. PW 4/G and DL of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/H. The witness has also identified the accused Gurucharan Singh present in the Court.
The witness was cross examined by Defence Counsel Mr. N.P. Singh. In his cross examination, PW 4 deposed that he was not aware as to whether IO had served notices U/s 133 MV Act on all registered owners of vehicles involved in the present case. The witness Vijay Verma was having a car and his car was also involved in the present case, however, the witness could not tell its number. He further deposed that the statement of Vijay Verma was recorded by the IO. The witness denied the suggestion that FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 3 of 16 Vijay Verma was driving rashly or negligently or that he alongwith police officials had shielded him and falsely implicated the accused Gurucharan Singh in the present case. The witness further admitted that all the five vehicles have collided. He denied the suggestion that collusion took place due to fault of Vijay Verma. He also denied the suggestion that he had protected Mr. Vijay Verma who was involved in accident and also main accused.
(v) Mr. Rajesh Verma was examined as PW 5. PW 5 deposed that on 17.12.2002 at around 9.30 PM while he was going to his house from his office via S.P. Marg by car bearing registration no. DL 2CL 5397. He was waiting for green signal at the crossing of Diplomatic Hotel one person was also waiting for the green signal behind his car on two wheeler scooter whose number he could not remember. He deposed that in the meantime, accused Gurucharan Singh who was duly identified by the witness came there in a fast speed from behind and hit his car after hitting the two wheeler scooter was waiting behind his car, however, the witness could not remember the registration number of ambassador car. He deposed that his car was damaged and he sustained minor injuries on his forehead. The police came there and injured was removed to hospital by the PCR. The witness told entire incident to the police.
As the witness was resiling from his previous statement, he was allowed to be cross examined by Ld. APP for State. On cross examination by Ld. APP for State, the witness admitted that he had stated in his statement to the police that the number of the two wheeler scooter was DL 9SD 4457. He further admitted that he had stated in his statement to the police that the number of the offending ambassador car was DEA 135. The witness admitted that he had forgotten the above said fact due to lapse of time.
Thereafter, the witness was cross examined by Counsel for accused Mr. N.P. Singh. In cross examination, in reply to the suggestion that he had not seen the FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 4 of 16 offending vehicle hitting his car as he was standing at the red light and he has not seen the offending vehicle, the witness stated that he had seen the offending vehicle immediately after it hit his vehicle. He deposed that two three other vehicles were standing ahead of his car, however, he did not notice whether some vehicles were standing by the side of his car or not. The witness deposed that he could not remember whether damage was also caused to the vehicle standing ahead of his car or by the side of his car. He denied the suggestion that while he was crossing the red light the vehicle going ahead of his car suddenly applied the brake and he also applied brake due to which three or four vehicles coming from behind collided with each other. He further denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the abovesaid reason. He further denied that the accident had taken place due to his negligence as he suddenly applied brakes. He further denied that accused did not hit his car from behind or that the damage was caused by scooter or motorcycle. He further denied that accident had taken place due to his negligence . He deposed that he could not remember the number of the two wheeler scooter and ambassador car, the said suggestion was objected to by Ld. APP for State as the same had already come on record during examination in chief. The witness denied that he was deposing falsely or that he was giving a statement to save himself. He denied that accused Gurucharan Singh was not driving the car at the time of accident. His statement was recorded in the PS Chanakaya Puri and remaining writing work was done by the IO at the spot. He deposed that police also recorded the statement of other PWs in his presence, however, he did not remember their names. The witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
(vi) Sh. Vijay Kumar, the injured in the matter was examined as PW 6. He deposed that on 17.12.2002 at about 8.30 PM, he was going towards Daula Kaun at Kautalaya Marg. An ambassador car bearing no. DEA 135 hit against his scooter no. DL 9SD 4487. The above said car also hit another maruti car and he became unconscious and FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 5 of 16 he was taken to the hospital. The witness deposed that he took his vehicle on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW 6/A. The witness identified his signatures at Point A. The witness, however, was allowed to be cross examined by Ld. APP for State as he was resiling from his previous statement. The witness denied the suggestion that he did not remember whether the driver of the offending car driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
Thereafter, the witness was cross examined by Sh. N.P. Singh, Counsel for accused. In his cross examination by Counsel for accused, the witness denied the suggestion that the maruti hit against his scooter rather than ambassador no. DEA 135. The witness admitted that there was collision between the vehicles.
(vii) Sh. Ashwani Kumar was examined as PW 7. PW 7 deposed that he was the owner of the ambassador car bearing registered no. DEA 135. The witness deposed that he had given the reply of notice under section 133 MV Act vide memo Ex. PW 7/A. The witness identified his signatures at point A. The witness deposed that the said car was being driven by accused Gurucharan Singh. The witness identified the accused present in the Court as the person who was driving the said vehicle on 17.12.2002 at the time of accident. The witness deposed that on 18.12.2002, he presented the accused Gurucharan Singh before the police and also got his car released on superdari vide superdarinama vide memo Ex. PW 7/B. The witness identified his signatures at point A. The witness however did not produce the said car on the date of deposition.
The witness was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity being given .
(viii) Sh. N.C. Vishwas, Record Clerk from RML Hospital, Delhi was FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 6 of 16
examined as PW 8. PW 8 deposed that he had seen MLC Ex. PW 8/A same was true and correct as per records maintained by hospital opinion at point A which was prepared by Doctor Vivek Aggarwal, who has left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not available with the hospital authorities. The witness has identified his writing and signatures since he had seen Doctor Aggarwal writing and signing in his official course of duty.
The witness was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity being given .
(ix) Doctor Yashwant Singh, Radiologist from RML Hospital, Delhi was examined as PW 9. PW 9 proved his report Ex. PW 9/A. He deposed that it was a case of Fracture of right temporal of skull bone. He further deposed that he had also seen X ray plate placed on record of this case, upon which his report Ex. PW 9/A was prepared.
The witness was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity being given .
(x) ASI Deena Nath Tiwari was examined as PW 10. PW 10 deposed that on 17.12.2002, he was posted at PS Chanakaya Puri as ASI and on receiving of DD No. 26 Ex. PW 10/A, he alongwith Ct. Rajender Singh reached at Diplomat Hotel, S.P. Marg, Near Red Light, Delhi. He deposed that there he saw that five vehicles were collided with one another. One car bearing no. DEA 135 was found struck to patri / foot path, one scooter bearing no. DL 9S D 4487 was found in accidental condition and other three vehicles were also found in accidental condition. He deposed that the accused was not found at the spot when they reached the spot of accident. He deposed that he came to know that injured were already shifted to RML Hospital. The witness left the Ct. Rajender Singh at the spot and went to RML Hospital, where doctor declared injured FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 7 of 16 persons unfit for statement. The witness also made efforts to find any eye witness of the accident in question but all went in vain.
The witness deposed that he came back to the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW 10/B. The witness identified his signature at point A. The witness made endorsement on the DD Entry Ex. PW 10/C at the spot. The witness handed over the same to Ct. Rajender Singh for registration of the case. Ct. Rajender Singh came back at the spot after registration of the case and handed over him the copy of FIR Ex. PW 10/D and original rukka. All the five vehicle were seized vide separate seizure memos Ex. PW 4/A to Ex. PW 4/E. The witness identified his signatures at point A on all exhibits. The witness also seized the RC of vehicle bearing No. DEA 135 vide seizure memo Ex. PW 10/E. The witness identified his signatures at point A. D/L of accused was also seized vide memo Ex. PW 4/H. The witness identified his signatures at point A. The witness also seized the photocopy of RC of vehicle bearing no. DL 5C A 6874, vehicle bearing no. DL 9C A 4242, vehicle bearing no. DL 2C L 5397 vide memo Ex. PW 10/F, Ex. PW 10/G, Ex. PW 10/H respectively. The witness identified his signatures at point A on all exhibits.
The witness got conducted the mechanical inspection of all the vehicles by expert. He identified the accused present in the court as the same person who was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 10/I. He identified his signatures at point A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 4/G, the witness identified his signatures at point A. The witness gave notice U/s 133 M.V. Act to accused vide memo Ex. PW 7/A. The witness identified his signatures at point A. The witness recorded the statement of witnesses. The witness identified the accused Gurcharan Singh, present in the court. The witness deposed that after completion of the investigation challan was filed by other IO as he was transferred from PS. The witness was not cross examined by defence despite opportunity being given .
FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 8 of 16
4. No other PW was examined in PE and hence, PE was closed.
5. Statement of accused U/s 313 Cr. PC was recorded on 01.11.2010 by my Ld. Predecessor. All the evidence coming on record against the accused was put to him. The accused, however submitted that his car bearing no. DEA 135 struck the abovementioned scooter no. DL 9SD 4487 only and not the abovementioned car bearing no. DL 9CA 4242. The abovementioned scooter no. DL 9SD 4487 struck against car bearing no. DL 9CA 4242. No one sustained any kind of injuries. The accused further submitted that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he did not want to lead DE and hence, DE was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
6. I have heard final arguments on behalf of parties and perused the record. The prosecution to bring home conviction U/s 279/338 IPC was to prove that accused has caused grievous to the injured by hitting him by driving his ambassador car no. DEA 135 in a rash and negligent manner.
7. The offences with which the accused has been charged provide as under:
Section 279 of Indian Penal Code provides:
Rash driving or riding on a public way 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.
FIR NO.: 329 of 2002
POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI
U/S: 279/338 IPC 9 of 16
Section 338 of Indian Penal Code provides:
Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or
personal safety of others Whoever causes grievous 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 two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. On perusal of the above provisions it can be found that rashness or negligence is one of the key ingredients of all the aforesaid offences.
8. It is well settled that culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extend 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, conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumstances which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering 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.
9. 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 FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 10 of 16 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 our of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
10. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway J in these words: "Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happenings. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised that caution incumbent upon him and that if he had he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection.
11. From the testimony of all the PWs examined by the prosecution, it has come up on record that the ambassador car no. DEA 135 which was being driven by the accused Gurucharan Singh has hit against one two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL 9SD 4487 and one car no. DL 2CL 5397 and thereby caused injuries to one Mr. Vijay Kumar who was driving the two wheeler scooter.
12. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined total 10 witnesses. PW 5 Mr Mr. Rajesh Verma who was driving one of the cars bearing registration no. DL 2CL 5397 deposed that on the day of accident, he was waiting for green signal at the crossing of Diplomatic Hotel and one other person was also waiting for the green signal behind his car on two wheeler scooter whose number he could not remember. He deposed that in FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 11 of 16 the meantime, accused Gurucharan Singh came there in a fast speed from behind and hit his car after hitting the two wheeler scooter which was waiting behind his car, however, he could not remember the registration number of ambassador car which was being driven by accused. However, in cross examination by Ld. APP for State, he admitted that the number of the two wheeler scooter was DL 9SD 4457 and number of the offending ambassador car was DEA 135. He further admitted that he had forgotten the above said fact due to lapse of time. The witness in cross examination by Defence Counsel, in reply to the suggestion stated that he had not seen the offending vehicle hitting his car as he was standing at the red light and he had not seen the offending vehicle.He stated that he had seen the offending vehicle immediately after it hit his vehicle. He further deposed that two or three other vehicles were standing ahead of his car, however, he did not notice whether some vehicles were standing by the side of his car or not. The witness deposed that he could not remember whether damage was also caused to the vehicle standing ahead of his car or by the side of his car. He denied the suggestion that while he was crossing the red light the vehicle going ahead of his car suddenly applied the brake and he also applied brake due to which three or four vehicles coming from behind collided with each other. He further denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to the abovesaid reason. He further denied the suggestion that the accident had taken place due to his negligence as he suddenly applied brakes. He further denied that accused did not hit his car from behind or that the damage was caused by scooter or motorcycle. He further denied that accident had taken place due to his negligence. He further denied that accused Gurucharan Singh was not driving the car at the time of accident.
Another public witness Sh. Vijay Kumar who was the injured in the present case was examined as PW 6. He deposed that on 17.12.2002 at about 8.30 PM, he was going towards Daula Kaun at Kautalaya Marg and an ambassador car bearing no. DEA 135 hit against his scooter no. DL 9SD 4487. He further deposed that the above said FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 12 of 16 car also hit another maruti car and he became unconscious and he was taken to the hospital. The witness, however, said nothing in regard to the manner in which the offending car was driven by the accused, however, he denied the suggestion that the maruti hit against his scooter rather than ambassador no. DEA 135.
13. The prosecution, however has examined Sh. Ashwani Kumar, registered owner of the offending vehicle DEA 135 as PW 7. PW 7 admitted that he had given the reply of notice under section 133 MV Act vide memo Ex. PW 7/A. He further identified his signatures at point A on the said memo. The witness deposed that the said car was being driven by accused Gurucharan Singh who was present in the court on 17.12.2002 at the time of accident. He further deposed that on 18.12.2002, he presented the accused Gurucharan Singh before the police.
14. I have also gone through the memo Ex. PW 7/A wherein also, this witness PW 7 has specifically mentioned while signing the memo that his car DEA 135 was driven by the accused at the time of accident. From the testimony of all the abovementioned witnesses, it is clear that the other PWs have supported the version of the prosecution in this regard, however, the prosecution in such case require's to prove culpable negligence and rashnesss on the part of the accused. To bring home conviction in this case, the prosecution has also examined Mr. T.U. Siddiqui, Motor Vehicle Inspector to prove the mechanical inspection of all the vehicles involved in the accident. He proved his separate reports on record as Ex. PW 1/A, Ex. PW 1/B, Ex. PW 1/C, Ex. PW 1/D and Ex. PW 1/E. I have gone through the reports produced by motor vehicle inspector.
As per the reports, the offending vehicle i.e. ambassador car no. DEA 135 on inspection was found having following damages:
FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 13 of 16
(a) Front right side bumpher, grill broken.
(b) Front right side head light broken. (c) Front right side Mudguard damaged.
The maruti car 800 CC bearing no. DL 2CL 5397 which was driven by PW 5, Mr. Rajesh Verma on inspection was found having following damages:
(a) Front left side bumpher car in radiator, fender, apron damaged.
(b) Right car rear body shell damaged. (c) Rear Diggi bumpher back light broken. (d) Rear left body/chasis damaged.
The bajaj chetak scooter bearing no. scooter no. DL 9SD 4487 which was driven by PW 6 Sh. Vijay Kumar on inspection was found having following damages:
(a) Front Hanole Mutha broken. (b) Front head light broken. (c) Front show damaged. (d) Front chasis found damaged. (e) Rear back light and no. plate broken. (f) Rear chasis damaged.
15. The other two cars, one maruti car 800 CC bearing no. DL 5C A 6874 and ambassador car bearing no. DL 9C A 4242 also had damages in the rear right side of the vehicles as per the reports filed by PW 1.
From the reports of Mechanical Inspector, it is clear that only the offending vehicle i.e. ambassador car no. DEA 135 has shown damages on the front right side whereas the vehicle pertaining to the injured i.e. two wheeler scooter bearing no.
FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 14 of 16
DL 9S D 4487 and the maruti car which was driven by PW 5 bearing no. DL 2CL 5397 has got damages on both sides i.e. rear and front, hence, mechanical inspector proves clearly that offending vehicle no. DEA 135 had hit against one scooter no. DL 9SD 4487 and one car no. DL 9CA 4242 from rear side which had caused damages on the offending vehicle on the front side only and damages on the other vehicles in the rear side and front side also.
16. It has come up on record that the car bearing registration no. DL 2CL 5397 was standing on red light waiting for green signal. The other two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL 9SD 4487 has also approached the red light and was slowing down and the other two vehicles were also standing on the red light at the time the accident took place.
17. As per the testimony of PW 5 and PW 6, it is clear that the offending vehicle while being driven in a fast speed had hit against these vehicles. It is proved that the driver of the ambassador car bearing no. DEA 135 was at fast speed while approaching a red light. This act of the accused was certainly rash and negligent as he despite being conscious of the fact that he was approaching a red light has run the risk of driving his vehicle at a fast speed. The prosecution in my considered view has clearly proved that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hence, hit against other vehicles which were standing on the red light waiting for green signal. Hence, the culpable negligence and rashness stands proved on the part of the accused as he had failed to take proper care while driving his vehicle on the road near a red light.
18. In the facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused stands convicted for the offences punishable U/s 279/338 IPC.
FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 15 of 16 Let he be heard on sentence on 02.07.2011. (ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN SUDESH KUMAR COURT ON 30th June, 2011 ) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE This Judgment contains 16 pages NEW DELHI DISTRICT and each paper is signed by me. PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI FIR NO.: 329 of 2002 POLICE STATION: CHANAKAYA PURI U/S: 279/338 IPC 16 of 16