Delhi District Court
Aynuddin @ Miyan vs State Of Andhra Pradesh", 2000 Air (Sc) ... on 30 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AJAY SINGH PARIHAR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE : NORTH WEST-05,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 567/10
P.S. : Mangolpuri
Case No. 527605/16
State
Vs.
Munna Singh S/o. Sh. Leelu Ram
R/o Sewa Nagar Colony near Gawar Factory,
Bhiwani, Haryana.
Date of institution of case : 09.03.2011
Date of reserving the judgment : 28.04.2022
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.04.2022
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 527605/16
2. Date of Commission of Offence: 03.08.2010
3. Date of institution of the case: 09.03.2011
4. Name of the complainant: Sh. Rajat Chillar @ Sonu
5. Name of the accused: Munna Singh
6. Offence complained or proved: 279/304A IPC
7. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty"
FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 1 of 15
PS Mangolpuri
8. Final Order: Acquitted
9. Date of Final Order: 30.04.2022
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Succinctly, the facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 03.08.2010 at around 10:15 P.M. at Outer Ring Road, towards Peeragarhi near bus stop Pitampura, police line, the accused was found driving one car bearing registration No. HR16G-9713 Hyundai (i-10) in a rash and negligent manner and struck against one lady namely Rukmani, which resulted into her death. After completion of investigation, charge sheet against accused was filed in the Court under section 279 & 304-A Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
2. Cognizance of the offence under Section 279 and 304A IPC was taken on 09.03.2011. The accused was present in the Court and the copy of the charge sheet & relevant documents were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C).
3. Prima facie case was made out and Notice for the offence under Section 279 & 304A IPC was framed against the accused on 17.01.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed up for recording of prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined ten FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 2 of 15 PS Mangolpuri witnesses.
PW-1 Sh. Rajat Chhillar @ Sonu being complainant has deposed that he does not remember the day and month of year but it was the time of about 10:00 to 10:30 PM. He further deposed that on that day, he alongwith his friend namely Vikas were walking on the service road near police line bus stand and noticed that a car of blackish colour came from the side of Madhuban Chowk in a very high speed hit a lady and ran over her. He further deposed that he could not notice the number of the car and and he called the PCR on 100 number and took that lady to Jaipur Golden Hospital in an auto. PW-1 further deposed that the said lady was crossing the road from the abovesaid bus stand of police line on a road leading to Peeragarhi and after admitting the injured to the hospital, PW-1 alongwith Vikas came back to their house.
PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination by Ld. APP for State as PW-1 was resiling from his earlier statement, wherein, he deposed that from the hospital, he was called to spot by police officials by calling on his mobile. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by police officials on the spot. PW-1 admitted that the accident had taken place in the night of 03.08.2010 and he signed his statement. PW-1 deposed that he had read his statement before signing the same. PW-1 deposed that he had not told the police in his statement the registration number of the offending car, confronted with portion X1 to X2 in statement Ex.PW1/A, wherein it was so recorded, the offending car was having a dent on the diggy (back side) of the car and after that day of the incident, IO of the case came to meet PW-1. Upon showing site plan Mark A to the witness, witness deposed that the same was not prepared at his instance but he told FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 3 of 15 PS Mangolpuri to the IO how accident took place. PW-1 denied the suggestion that he was not deliberately telling the registration number of the offending car which he told to the IO in his statement Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused and that is why, deposed falsely.
PW-1 was subjected to cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel.
PW-2 Ct. Rakesh Kumar has deposed that on 04.08.2010 at about 1:25 mid night, upon receiving a call vide DD No.2, he alongwith ASI Satvir Singh reached at Outer Ring Road, Pitampura near police line, where IO prepared site plan at instance of complainant whose name he does not remember. PW-2 further deposed that IO recorded statement, whereupon, they proceeded towards PS Mangolpuri. IO recorded statement of police staff of Mangolpuri, where dead body was identified through relatives of the deceased, whereafter, IO completed the documentation work and then postmortem was got conducted.
PW-2 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Defence counsel.
PW-3 Sh. Vikas was examined, who took the injured to the hospital and he deposed that on 03.08.2010 at about 10:45 PM, he was present at Pitampura, Police Line, then, he heard loud noise of an accident. Upon coming outside, PW-3 saw that a crowd of people had gathered outside the ring road near Mangolpuri bus stop, at that time, Sh. Rajat Chillar was also there. PW-3 ran towards the same and found that one lady was lying unconscious on the road and with the help of an auto rickshaw driver, he took the lady to Jaipur Golden Hospital. PW-3 deposed that public persons, FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 4 of 15 PS Mangolpuri who were there at the place of incident had told him that the lady had met with an accident, PW-3 told this fact to doctor concerned. PW-3 further deposed that doctors at the Jaipur Golden Hospital tried their level best to save the lady but she could not be saved and as per the doctors, the lady had suffered internal injuries due to which, she had succumbed to her injuries.
This witness was not cross-examined despite giving opportunity in this regard.
PW-4 ASI Illa Khan deposed that on 03/04.08.2010, he was on emergency duty and upon receipt of DD No.83-B at about 10:25 PM regarding an accident, he reached the spot alongwith Ct. Hoshiar Singh, where they had not found the injured and vehicle at the spot and came to know from SI Uma Dutt that injured was already taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where she expired. SI Uma Dutt received the DD No.91-B regarding the death of the injured and carried out further proceedings. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was not cross-examined despite giving opportunity in this regard.
PW-5 HC Biresh Prasad was examined, who deposed that on 03/04.08.2010 at about 11:35 PM, SI Uma Dutt received a DD entry No.91-B regarding death of injured in Jaipur Golden Hospital, whereafter, they went to Jaipur Golden Hospital and received the dead body of injured/ deceased Rukmani Devi and took the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and deposited the body at the same.
FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 5 of 15
PS Mangolpuri
PW-5 received the token no.661 from the mortuary and handed over the same to the IO. IO recorded the statement of PW-5.
This witness was not cross-examined despite giving opportunity in this regard.
PW-6 Dr. Manoj Dhingra was examined, who deposed that on 04.08.2010, he alongwith Dr. J.V. Kiran have conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Rukmani, 45 years old female with alleged history of RTA. The detailed postmortem report was Ex.PW6/A bearing his signatures at point A and signatures of Dr. J.V. Kiran at point B. PW-6 deposed that in this case, the cause of death was hemorage and shock consequent to blunt force impact to chest and pelvis region.
This witness was not cross-examined despite giving opportunity in this regard.
PW-7 Ct. Hoshiyar Singh was examined, who deposed that on 04.08.2010, SI Uma Dutt called him at the spot, accordingly, he reached at the spot, where IO SI Uma Dutt prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him for getting the case registered, whereupon, he reached the PS Mangolpuri and got the case FIR registered. PW-7 further deposed that he again went to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Uma Dutt. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was not cross-examined despite giving opportunity in this regard.
PW-8 Retired SI Satbir Singh was examined being the IO of the FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 6 of 15 PS Mangolpuri case and he deposed that on intervening night of 3 and 4 August, 2010 at about 1:25 AM, he received a call vide DD No.2 regarding the accident at Pitampura Red Light, near bus stand, whereupon, he alongwith Ct. Rakesh went to the spot i.e. outer Ring Road, Pitampura, near Police line, where they met Rajat Chillar and IO SI Uma Shankar. PW-8 further deposed that SI Uma Shankar already prepared a Tehrir, when he reached at the spot and same was handed over to Ct. Hoshiyar Singh for registration of the FIR. PW-8 deposed that Ct. Hoshiyar Singh left the spot for the PS alongwith original rukka for registration of FIR and he made inquiry from Rajat Chillar regarding the accident. PW-8 prepared site plan Ex.PW8/A at the instance of Rajat Chillar. PW-8 further recorded the statements of Ct. Viresh, witness Sagar and other witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. and then, left the spot for the AIU, Outer District. PW-8 further deposed that from there, he alongwith relatives of deceased went to SGMH Mortuary, where he got identified the dead body of deceased Rukmini through the relatives and recorded their statements as Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C. Thereafter, dead body of the deceased was handed over to the relatives vide handing over memo Ex.PW8/D. PW-8 further deposed that photographs of the place of accident were taken by the first IO Uma Shankar. PW-8 further made inquiry regarding the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing registrtion No. HR16G 9713, Hyundai i10 from the concerned authority and came to know about the registered owner of the vehicle being Pradeep Kumar and PW-8 served notice u/s. 133 M.V. Act to him vide notice Ex.PW8/E and Pradeep Kumar produced the driver of the offending vehicle at AIU, Outer District, PS South Rohini and further told that Munna Singh was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident.
FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 7 of 15
PS Mangolpuri
PW-8 further deposed that Bimla, sister of deceased came at AIU and identified the accused Munna Singh at instance of Bimla, vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/F and PW-8 conducted the personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW8/G. PW-8 correctly identified the accused present in court on that day. PW-8 seized the DL of accused, RC and photocopy of insurance papers of offending vehicle vide memos Ex.PW8/H and Ex.PW8/I and recorded the statements of Bimla and Pradeep Kumar u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. PW- 8 further seized the offending car vide memo Ex.PW8/J and got conducted the mechanical inspection of offending car vide request application Ex.PW8/K. PW-8 got verified the DL of accused, RC and insurance papers of offending vehicle from concerned authority and offending vehicle was released on superdari. PW-8 collected the PM report of the deceased and after preparing chargesheet, filed the same in Court. PW-8 correctly identified the photographs of the offending vehicle i.e. car as Ex.P1 and photographs of place of accident as Ex.P2.
This witness was not cross-examined despite giving opportunity in this regard.
PW-9 Retired SI Uma Dutt being the 1st IO of the case has deposed that on 03.08.2010, upon receipt of DD no.91 B regarding one patient admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital. PW-9 alongwith Ct. Brijesh went to the Jaipur Golden Hospital and collected the MLC of Rukmani Devi, wherein it was mentioned by the doctor that she was brought dead to the hospital. PW-9 deposed that no eye witness was present in the hospital and dead body of Rukmani Devi was sent to the mortuary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. PW-9 further deposed that in respect of abovesaid accident, he also received DD no. 83B on which telephone number of the eye witness was mentioned and day after FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 8 of 15 PS Mangolpuri PW-9 made a call to the eye witness on his telephone number, who told him that he was present in front of police line Pitampura, Delhi. PW-9 went to the spot i,e in front of police line Pitampura, where he met eye witness Rajat Chillar, who told him his address and PW-9 recorded his statement which is already Ex.PW1/A and prepared rukka which was then Ex.PW9/A. PW-9 further deposed that Ct. Hoshiyar came at the spot who was on patrolling duty at that time and handed over to him original rukka for the registration of FIR, whereafter, he left the spot for the registration of FIR and PW-9 remained on the spot and in the meantime, ASI Satbir, second IO from MACT cell came at the spot to whom further investigation was marked.
PW-9 was cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
PW-10 Ms. Bimla Devi being eye witness was examined, who deposed that on 3rd however she does not know the month in the year 2010, her younger sister Rukmani came to her house, whereafter, she alongwith her younger sister Rukmani left her house to drop her at police line and they were going towards police line on foot and when they reach at police line, Pitampura, her younger sister was crossing the road and she was on the other side of the road. PW-10 deposed that when she was crossing the road, one vehicle whose registration number she does not remember on that day, came from the side of Madhubhan Chowk and hit her sister. PW-10 further deposed that she had not seen in what manner the driver of the abovesaid vehicle driving at the time of the accident as there was dark on the place of the accident and her sister fell down on the footpath of the road. PW-10 further deposed that two boys were passing through the spot and with the help of those two boys took, she took her sister to the Jaipur Golden Hospital and after the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot alongwith his vehicle and doctor declared her sister brought dead to the hospital and from there, she was taken to the Sanjay Gandhi FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 9 of 15 PS Mangolpuri Hospital. PW-10 further deposed that she could not identify the driver of the offending vehicle, as she has not seen him on the spot. PW-10 further correctly identified four photographs (already Ex. P-1 Colly.) of the offending vehicle bearing registration number HR-16G-9713 and states that same was the vehicle which hit her sister on the date of the accident. PW-10 had voluntarily stated that she also had seen the abovesaid vehicle parked at the police station and stated that she does not want to say anything more.
Thereafter, PW-10 was subjected to cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State as she was resiling from her previous statement recorded by the IO u/s 161 Cr.PC on 13.08.2010, wherein, PW-10 admitted that the accident occurred on 03.08.2010 at about 10:15 PM near Bus Stop, Pitampura, Police Line and further admitted that the offending vehicle came from the side of Deepali Chowk and driver of the offending vehicle was driving vehicle in high speed and rash and negligent manner and in abovesaid driving manner, driver of the offending vehicle hit her younger sister and further admitted that driver of the offending vehicle stopped the vehicle after some distance from the spot. PW- 10 further admitted that the driver of the offending vehicle reversed his vehicle after seeing her sister in unconscious condition, witness was confronted with the statement Mark X from point A to A-1 wherein it was so recorded. PW-10 further denied that seeing the accused on the spot after he stopped his vehicle on the spot, confronted with the statement Mark X from point B to B-1 where it was so recorded. PW-10 admitted that police officials came at the spot and later on she came to know the name of the driver of the offending vehicle as Munna Singh S/o Leelu Ram R/o Sewar Nagar Colony, Grawar Factory, Haryana. PW- 10 admitted that she identified the driver of the offending vehicle at the police station and told the IO that he was the same person, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. PW-10 further admitted that her statement was read over to her after same was recorded by the IO. Attention of FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 10 of 15 PS Mangolpuri the witness was drawn towards the accused, who was present in the Court, whereas, witness states that he was not the same person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. PW-10 denied the suggestion that she was not deliberately identifying the accused as she had been won over by him.
This witness was duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
5. Thereafter, on 28.04.2022, it was observed by the Court that the only eye witnesses in the present case i.e. PW-1/ complainant Sh. Rajat Chillar @ Sonu and PW-10 Smt. Bimla Devi sister of the deceased have already turned hostile and there is no other evidence against the accused. Hence, PE stands closed. Statement of accused u/s. 313 Cr.P.C stands dispensed with. Final arguments were heard on behalf of the accused as well as on behalf of the State. I have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed before me.
6. At the onset, it would be appropriate to have glance at the ingredients of the offences charged :-
* Section 279 IPC. 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.
* Section 304-A IPC. Causing death by negligence
FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 11 of 15
PS Mangolpuri
Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
7. To prove the case against accused the prosecution was obliged to prove the following ingredients:
-that the accused was driving the offending vehicle;
-in a rash or negligent manner;
-the offending vehicle hit the motorcycle which was being driven by one Sh. Munna Singh.
-caused death of Smt. Rukmani.
8. The Apex Court has defined rashness/negligence in "Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh", 2000 AIR (SC) 2511 wherein it has been held that "a rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution".
9. The PW-1/ complainant Sh. Rajat Chillar @ Sonu and PW-10 Smt. FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 12 of 15 PS Mangolpuri Bimla Devi sister of the deceased being the sole eye witnesses of the incident did not support the case of the prosecution, as they failed to identify the accused. No other eye witness is cited in the list of witnesses. PW-1 and PW-10 are the only eye witness of the prosecution on whose testimonies, the prosecution case hinges upon. However, they have not supported the prosecution story. The remaining unexamined witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses and they cannot prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.
10. It is clear from the testimonies of the witnesses examined in the present case that an accident took place as alleged by the prosecution in which a one lady namely Rukmani died and the accused was driving the offending vehicle. It is to be seen whether the accident resulted due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused or not.
11. The prosecution has examined the PW-1/ complainant Sh. Rajat Chillar @ Sonu and PW-10 Smt. Bimla Devi sister of the deceased, who are the only eye witnesses and who have not supported the prosecution version. PW-10 has not even identified the accused even during cross-exmination by Ld. APP. In such case, the benefit of every doubt has to be given to the accused. Since the identity of the accused as the offender is not establish qua the main witnesses. It is not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is the person who had committed the offence.
12. All the remaining witnesses whose names have been mentioned in the list of witnesses are either police officials or formal witnesses and they are not ocular witnesses and could not prove the culpability of accused. None of the remaining witness is an eye witness to the incident and no other witness is competent enough to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. The complicity FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 13 of 15 PS Mangolpuri of accused could have been proved by the ocular evidence or circumstantial evidence. The ocular witness turned hostile and the circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is well settled law that to convict the accused on circumstantial evidence, there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of accused and nothing else.
13. The burden of proof on the prosecution is to prove the case by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions. Suspicion howsoever grave may be, cannot take place of proof. Every benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused.
14. In case titled as Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration & Anr. 1996 JCC 507 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "in a case where, there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction the valuable time of Court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date".
15. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited Judgment, this Court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. The Court needs to protect the right of accused person to have speedy justice and acquit the accused forthwith as there is nothing incriminating against accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for offences punishable u/s 279/304-A IPC.
16. Accused is directed to furnish bail bonds under section 437-A of Cr.PC in the sum of Rs.10,000/- which would remain valid for a period of six months.
FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 14 of 15 PS Mangolpuri 17. File be consigned to Record Room. AJAY SINGH Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR PARIHAR Date: 2022.04.30 11:07:26 +05'30' Announced in open Court (AJAY SINGH PARIHAR) on 30th day of April, 2022 Metropolitan Magistrate North West-05, Delhi FIR No. 567/10 State v. Munna Singh 15 of 15 PS Mangolpuri