Delhi District Court
State vs . Moti Nagar 1/7 on 24 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Manoj Kumar
FIR No. 357/2015
PS Moti Nagar
U/s 279/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 161/2/2016
New case No. : 73422/2016
Date of Institution : 23.06.2016
Date of Commission of Offence : 22.04.2015
Name of the complainant : HC Amrit
Name & address of the accused : Manoj Kumar
S/o Sh. Chhatar Singh
R/o Village Ganuda,
PO Prikshit Garh,
Tehsil Mawana,
District Meerut, U.P.
Offence complained of : U/s 279/304-A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 24.10.2016
Date of announcing of judgment : 24.10.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/304-A IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 22.04.2015 at about 07:07 PM at Road No.34 in front of Jhulelal Mandir, New Moti Nagar, Delhi, accused Manoj Kumar FIR No. 357/2015 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 1/7 was driving a bus bearing registration no.DL-1PD-0899 in a rash and negligent manner. He while driving in such manner hit his bus against one scooter make Honda Activa bearing registration no.DL-6SAM-2901, which was being driving by one Akash and late Ms. Ritika was pillion rider on the same. Due to the accident Ms. Ritika sustained injuries and died due to the injuries.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/304-A IPC was framed against accused Manoj Kumar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the above said allegations, prosecution has cited 18 witnesses of which PW Sh. Akash Dass is the only eye witness of the accident. Remaining witnesses are formal or police witnesses and none of them is the witness of accident. Thus, the relevant witness to prove the fact that accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and he was driving in rash and negligent manner is PW Sh. Akash Dass.
6. Prosecution has examined only one witness in support of its case i.e Sh. Akash Dass.
7. PW1 Sh. Akash Dass stated that at present he is studying at Khalsa college, Delhi. It is stated by him that on 22.04.2015 at around 6.30 pm, he was riding an Activa scooter while his friend namely Ms Ritika was pillion rider. It is stated that he picked his friend / deceased namely Ritika from bus stop near Shadipur Flyover. It is stated that they were going towards the side of Karmapura, in the FIR No. 357/2015 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 2/7 meantime one bus came from his right side and hit against the scooty due to which he and his friend / deceased fell down on the road. He could not tell the registration number of offending bus. It is stated that due to fall on the road, he sustained multiple injuries as abrasion on his body parts while his friend/ deceased Ritika sustained head injuries. It is stated by him that he immediately with the help of a stranger, who stopped his car nearby place of accident, removed his friend / deceased Ritika to the Acharya Bhikshu hospital. It is stated that he informed the family members of deceased about the accident. Thereafter, police official came at Acharya Bhikshu Hospital and enquired from him regarding accident. This witness could not identify the photographs of the bus bearing registration no. DL-1PD-09889 shown to him in the Court. This witness correctly identified the photographs of the scooty bearing registration no. DL- 6SAM-2901 shown to him in the Court as Ex.P1 (colly). In his cross-examination by Ld. APP, it is accepted by him that the accident took place at road no. 34, Jhule Lal Mandir, Moti Nagar, Delhi. He accepted that his statement was recorded by the police official. He denied the suggestion that he had apprised to the police about the registration of the offending bus i.e. DL-1PD-0899. He further denied the suggestion that he had recited to the police in his statement Mark X that at the time of accident, offending bus dragged him and deceased to a distance. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed to the police in his statement which Mark X that immediately after the accident, his friend/ deceased namely Ritika became unconscious. He further denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that from the hospital he returned at the place of accident where accused was standing alongwith the police officials and his name was FIR No. 357/2015 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 3/7 disclosed during investigation as Manoj Kumar R/o Meerut, U.P. He denied the suggestion that he had apprised to the police that accused Manoj Kumar was driving the offending bus in rash and negligence manner. He further denied the suggestion that he had identified the accused at the spot. He further denied the suggestion that he had apprised in his statement to the police official that site plan was prepared at his instance. When the site plan was shown to the witness, it is stated by the witness that the signature at point A is of him, however, the document was not prepared at his instance. He could not recall whether arrest memo of accused Manoj Kumar was prepared by the police official in his presence or not however, he admitted his signature at point A. He denied the suggestion that the driving licence of the accused was seized by the police official in his presence. When this witness was shown the seizure memo of driving licence of accused, it is stated by him that that he cannot say that this document was prepared by the police official in his presence or not, however, witness admitted his signature at point A. He further denied the suggestion that he had stated in his statement that seizure memo of driving licence and arrest memo of accused was prepared in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he made his statement to the police truly, freely and without any pressure. He denied the suggestion that he is deliberately not identifying the accused as he has been won over by the accused outside the court. He further denied the suggestion that he is not stating the true facts of the present case before the Court today as accused had offered him money and in consideration of the same, he had not stated true facts before the court today. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely only to save the accused. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused, this FIR No. 357/2015 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 4/7 witness failed to identify the accused.
8. PW1 Sh. Akash Dass is the only eye witness of the accident in the present case, however, he failed to identify the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle despite being specifically pointed by the Ld. Defence counsel in his cross examination. Even he could not identify the offending vehicle. Since, the only eye witness Sh. Akash Dass has failed to identify the accused or offending vehicle, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing no.DL-1PD-0899 which was being driven by the accused Manoj Kumar in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences U/s 279/304-A IPC. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs". reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Hence vide a separate order, PE was closed.
9. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for FIR No. 357/2015 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 5/7 protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression.
Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
10. It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
11. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the Court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/304-A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
Final Order
12. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 Indian Penal Code are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. For an offence under Section 304-A, the act of accused must be rash and negligent, which should be responsible for the death which does not amount to culpable homicide.
13. The prosecution in the present case has failed to prove that the accident in question had taken place with the offending vehicle bearing no.DL-1PD-0899 or that the accused the vehicle in question at the time of accident or that he was FIR No. 357/2015 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 6/7 driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner as the only eye witness Sh. Akash Dass has failed to identify the offending vehicle or the accused. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s.258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Manoj Kumar qua offences u/s 279/304-A IPC and hereby releases the accused Manoj Kumar under sections 279/304-A IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal as the material witness i.e. Sh. Akash Dass has been examined.
14. Accused has furnished fresh bail/surety bond in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The same has been accepted. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 24.10.2016 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 7 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 357/2015 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Moti Nagar 7/7