Delhi District Court
State vs . Pintu Kumar on 23 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR-1
ACMM (NORTH-WEST) ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 147/12
PS: Bharat Nagar
U/s. 279/337/338/471 IPC
State Vs. Pintu Kumar
Date of Institution of case: 21.09.2012
Date of Judgment reserved: 16.08.2022
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 23.08.2022
Unique ID no. of the case : 534840/2016
Date of commission of offence : 27.06.2012
Name of complainant : SAGAR
S/o- Sh. Vinod Kumar,
R/o- A-20, Satyawati
Colony, Ashok Vihar, PH-
III, Delhi.
Name and address of accused : PINTU KUMAR
S/o- Nageshwar Mandal
R/o- 4398, Gali Bahuji
Katra Lekh Raj, Sadar
Bazar, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 279/337/338/471 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : ACQUITTED FOR
OFFENCE U/s 279/337/
338 IPC & CONVICTED
FOR THE OFFENCE
U/s 471 IPC.
Digitally signed
by DEEPAK
DEEPAK KUMAR
Date:
KUMAR 2022.08.23
16:59:15
+0530
CASE No. 534840/2016
FIR No. 147/12
PS Bharat Nagar
State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 1/18
JUDGEMENT
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Accused has been sent to face trial under Section 279/337/338/471 IPC, on the allegations that on 27.06.2012 at about 12.30 pm in front of police booth, Satyawati Colony, near Akshardham Mandir, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Bharat Nagar, Delhi, he was driving motorcycle bearing No. DL 1LL 3639 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. While so driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner, he hit against one motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 6SAJ 9351 and caused simple injuries to complainant/ injured Sagar and grievous injuries to the person of Mayank. He also fraudulently or dishonestly used his driving license No. P-71916 (UP) by producing it before IO HC Devender Singh as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that same was forged document. On the basis of the above allegations, the present FIR bearing No. 147/12 was registered at police station Bharat Nagar and the accused has been served upon notice for the aforesaid offence.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Copies of charge sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and notice U/s 279/337/338/471 IPC was served upon accused Pintu Kumar by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 01.12.2012 to which he pleaded not CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 2/18 guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution was thereafter given opportunity to prove the accusations against the accused. The prosecution has examined ten witnesses.
4. PW1 Lady HC Kamlesh deposed that on 27.06.2012, he was posted at Police Station Bharat Nagar and working as DD writer from 8.00 am to 4.00. On that day at 12.33 pm, a PCR call was received regarding accident at A-108, Ashok Vihar, Phase-
III Delhi. He recorded this information vide DD No. 15A in Roznamch register. The copy of DD entry is Ex. PW1/A (OSR). Further, deposed that on the same day at about 2.25 pm, he received one rukka from Ct. Satbir sent by HC Devender. He accordingly registered the FIR No. 147/12 U/s 279/337 IPC. The FIR was got registered through computer installed at PS Bharat Nagar on the basis of tehrir sent by HC Devender. A print out of the FIR bearing No. 147/12 was obtained and was handed over to Ct. Satbir and another printout was retained to be tagged in FIR register maintained as per rules. The printout of FIR Ex. PW1/B (OSR) is the same which was got registered by him in the present case on the basis of information fed into the computer which was being used for similar purposes in routine and was under lawful control. He further certified that nothing abnormal took place during that period so as to affect the accuracy and correctness of the information fed into the computer.
CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 3/18
5. PW2 Sagar deposed that on 27.06.2012 at about 12.30 pm, he alongwith his friend namely Mayank was going to Shakti Nagar apartments by motorcycle bearing registration no. DL- 6SAJ-9351. He was driving the motorcycle. When they reached near police booth situated in Satyawati Colony, one vehicle Vikram No. DL-1LL-3639 was coming from their opposite direction at a very high speed. The driver of Vikram vehicle overtook one WagonR and thereafter, hit their motorcycle. He and Mayank both fell down on the road. After causing accident, the driver of vehicle Vikram tried to flee away with vehicle but was stopped by public persons. He had seen the driver of offending vehicle at the spot when he was apprehended. Thereafter, he alongwith Mayank were taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital by public persons. Someone made PCR call. Police met him in hospital and his statement Ex. PW2/A was recorded in the hospital. Further deposed that the accident was caused due to the rash driving of accused as accused was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and he was driving the motorcycle at normal speed. Thereafter, on 28.06.12 after discharge from the hospital, police took him to the spot where he had shown the place of accident to police. Police prepared the site plan. During Court proceedings, accused produced his driving license which was found to be forged. Accused was arrested on the same day vide memo Ex. PW2/B. Witness correctly identified the accused as well as the offending vehicle.
CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 4/18
6. PW3 Mayank deposed that on 27.06.2012 at about 12.30 pm, he alongwith his friend namely Sagar were going to Shakti Extn. by motorcycle bearing register DL-6SAJ-9351. Sagar was driving the motorcycle. When they reached near police booth situated near Swami Narain Mandir, Satyawati Colony, one vehicle Vikram No. DL-1LL-3639 was coming from their opposite direction at a very high speed. The driver of Vikram vehicle overtook one WagonR and thereafter, hit their motorcycle. He and Sagar both fell down on the road. After causing accident, the driver of vehicle Vikram tried to flee away with vehicle but was stopped by public persons. He and Sagar were taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital by public persons. Someone had made PCR call. Police met him in hospital. He had seen accused for the first time in Sundar Lal Jain Hospital. His statement was recorded twice by the police i.e., in the hospital and in his house. Further deposed that the accident was caused due to the rash driving of accused as accused was driving the vehicle at a very high speed and over took the WagonR and thereafter, hit their motorcycle. PCR officials also reached at the spot in his presence and public persons produced accused before PCR officials.
7. PW4 Ct. Satbir deposed that on 27.06.2012, he was on patrolling duty at Satyawati Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III. He received an information through a person regarding accident and thereafter, he alongwith HC Devender went to S.L. Jain Hospital. From there the MLCs of injured persons namely CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 5/18 Mayank and Sagar were collected. Both the injured persons were fit for statement. IO HC Devender recorded the statement of injured Sagar and prepared rukka which was handed over to him for getting the FIR registered. After having got the FIR registered, he returned to the hospital alongwith rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to the IO. IO also recorded the statement of another injured Mayank.
8. PW5 Ct. Vikas Kumar deposed that on 27.06.2012, a call regarding an accident was received by IO/ HC Devender. He alongwith IO went to the spot where they found a tempo bearing No. DL-1S-3639 and a motorcycle. No eye-witness was found there and they came to know that injured person had already been sent to S.L. Jain Hospital. He was left on the spot and IO went to S.L. Jain Hospital. After about one hour, IO returned on the spot. The tempo was checked and the relevant documents pertaining to vehicle were recovered. The photographs of the spot from different angles were clicked. The vehicles were taken into possession vide memos Ex. PW5/A and PW5/B. The RC of the tempo was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/C. He does not remember the registration number of the motorcycle. After refreshing his memory, witness stated that the registration of motorcycle was DL-6SAJ-9351 and the registration of tempo was DL-1LL-3639.
9. PW6 Dr. Ajay Kumar deposed that on 27.06.2012, he was posted as Casually Medical Officer, Sunder Lal Jain CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 6/18 Hospital. On that day he examined the injured Mayank and Sagar vide MLC No. 8080 and 8081. As per medical examination and record, injury on the body of Mayank was grievous in nature and injury on the body of Sagar was simple in nature. Both the MLCs are Ex. PW6/A and PW6/B.
10. PW7 HC Devender Singh deposed that on 27.06.2012, he was posted as HC at PS Bharat Nagar. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00am to 8.00pm. At about 12.30- 1.00pm, on receipt of call regarding accident near Akshardham Mandir in front of police booth, Satyawati Colony, Ashok Vihar, Phase-III, he alongwith Ct. Vikas went to the spot. There he found one delivery van champion bearing no. DL1L-3639 and one motorcycle bearing no. DL-6SAS-9351 in accidental condition. He came to know that two persons who were on the motorcycle sustained injury and they alongwith the driver of champion vehicle were taken to S.L. Jain hospital, Ashok Vihar. He left Ct. Vikas at the spot and went to the hospital. There he obtained the MLC of injured namely Sagar and Mayank and they were declared fit for statement. He recorded the statement of Sagar. Ct. Satbir who was on patrolling duty came to S.L. Jain Hospital after getting information regarding the accident. He made endorsement Ex. PW7/A and handed over rukka to Ct. Satbir. The champion driver was also present in the hospital. He was identified by both the injured persons being the same person who had caused the accident. He came to know the name of accused as Pintu. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.
CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 7/18
PW2/B. He obtained the driving license of accused and same was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. The owner of the champion vehicle also reached in the hospital. Thereafter accused was released on bail. He alongwith accused and owner of the vehicle went to the spot. The owner produced the RC of vehicle lying in the champion. RC was also seized vide memo Ex. PW5/C. Owner could not produce the insurance paper and fitness of the champion vehicle so separate proceedings were initiated against him. Motorcycle and offending vehicles were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B and Ex. PW5/C. Both the vehicles were deposited in malkhana on the next day. He again went to the spot and injured Sagar was called. He prepared site plan Ex. PW7/C at the instance of PW Sagar. Both the vehicles were got mechanically inspected through ASI Devender. The mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles are Ex. PW7/D and Ex. PW7/E. He obtained the opinion regarding the nature of injuries sustained by Sagar and Mayak. The injuries sustained by injured Mayank were opined as grievous and injury sustained by Sagar were opined as simple. Thereafter, Section 338 IPC was added. He sent the driving license of the accused to the concerned Transport Authority situated at Bullandsahar for its verification. It was informed that no such license was issued by that Transport Authority in the name of the accused. The report collected by him from Bullandsahar Transport Authority is Ex. PW7/F. Thereafter, Section 471 IPC was also added. The motorcycle was released on superdari by the SHO. After completing the CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 8/18 investigation, charge sheet was filed. He also took the photographs of the spot with his mobile phone and the photographs reflecting the motorcycle and champion vehicle were shown to the witness who identified both the vehicles in photographs. Photographs are Ex. P-1 to P-7.
11. PW8 Dr. Gursharan Lamba deposed that he was working as HOD in Radiological Department in S.L. Jain Hospital for 12 years. He brought the record pertaining to the X- ray report of injured Sagar. The X-ray plate of injured Sagar are already on judicial file as per the X-ray report, no fracture was seen in his foot. After seeing the X-ray plate, states that this X- ray plate shows comminuted fracture lower shafts of tibia and fibula with displaced fracture fragments. Disclosure was seen in the 5th MP joint.
12. PW9 Ms. Manisha Trivedi brought the driving license record maintained in the authority. As per record, there is no entry in the record for issuance of D/L No. P-71916 dated 13.06.2017 and so no license on the said number has been issued by his authority to any person. A letter regarding the verification of this license was received in his authority from Delhi Police and after checking the record he gave report in the encircled portion X1 of the document Ex. PW7/F. No license in the name of Pintu Kumar on the above said number was issued by his office.
CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 9/18
13. PW10 Retd. ASI/ Tech. Devender Kumar deposed that on 28.06.2012, at the request of IO/HC Devender Singh he conducted mechanical inspection of Mahindra Champion bearing registration No. DL 1LL 3639 and motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 6SAJ 9351. During mechanical inspection both the vehicles were found fit for road test. His detailed reports are Ex. PW7/D and Ex. PW7/E.
14. After concluding the Prosecution Evidence, the entire incriminating evidence was put to accused in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein accused denied the allegations and stated that he was not driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and he has been falsely implicated in the case.
Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions.
15. At the very outset, it appears very significant and relevant to mention here that negligence and rashness are essential ele- ments under Section 279 IPC. 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. 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 deter- mining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 10/18 amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be suf- ficient 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 knowl- edge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the 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 out of which the charge has arisen it was the im- perative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
16. Having discussed the settled principles of law, now com- ing to the present case in question. In the present case, PW2 Sagar deposed that on 27.06.2012 at about 12.30 pm, he along- with his friend namely Mayank was going to Shakti Nagar apart- ments by motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-6SAJ-9351. That he was driving the motorcycle. When they reached near po- lice booth situated in Satyawati Colony, one vehicle Vikram bearing registration no. DL-1LL-3639, coming from their oppo- site direction at a very high speed, hit their motorcycle while overtaking one WagonR car. He and Mayank both fell down on CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 11/18 the road and sustained injuries. He further asserted that the acci- dent took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The testimony of PW2 appears to be suffering from several infirmities. The blanket and generic statement of PW2 regarding accident having taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Vikram vehicle driver, seems to be casual and superficial in nature as he failed to state the grounds which made him to comprehend and evaluate the rashness and negligence of Vikram driver. He failed to elaborate the precau- tions which ought to have been taken by the Vikram driver while negotiating the road at the relevant time and place. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, he admitted to be without helmet at the time of accident. He did not mention whether the sufficient cautions were taken by him while ap- proaching the road and the traffic at the given time and the place as being without helmet, he was supposed to be alarmed to re- main extra alert and attentive while negotiating the traffic on busy road.
17. Another witness PW3 Mayank deposed that on 27.06.2012 at about 12.30 pm, he alongwith his friend namely Sagar were going to Shakti Extn. by motorcycle bearing register DL-6SAJ- 9351. That Sagar was driving the motorcycle. When they reached near police booth situated in Satyawati Colony, one ve- hicle Vikram bearing registration no. DL-1LL-3639, coming from their opposite direction at a very high speed, hit their mo- torcycle while overtaking one WagonR car. He and Sagar both CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 12/18 fell down on the road and sustained injuries.He further deposed that the said Vikram Vehicle hit the motorcycle and accident took place due to rash driving of the driver as he was driving the vehi- cle at very high speed. The deposition of PW3 suffers from simi- lar susceptibilities as stated above. PW 3 did not specify the golden scale on the basis of which he weighed and judged the negligence of the offending vehicle. He failed to state if there was any red light which was being negotiated by the vehicles in- volved in the accident or some traffic instructions which the Vikram driver was supposed to have taken care of. He also failed to narrate the exact status of traffic on the road at the relevant time and place. The use of word 'High Speed' is prone to have wider subjective interpretation and can not be believed at face value while dealing the cases involving road accidents. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, he admitted his friend to be without helmet at the time of accident. He did not mention whether the sufficient cautions were taken by his friend while approaching the road and the traffic at the given time and the place as being without helmet, he was supposed to be alarmed to remain extra alert and attentive while negotiating the traffic on busy road.
18. In Abdul Subhan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 27 Septem- ber, 2006 133 (2006) DLT 562 , Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while holding that it is for the prosecution to bring on record suf- ficient material to establish what is meant by 'high speed', has held as follows:-
CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 13/18 "Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high-speed" does not bespeak of either "negli- gence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the wit- nesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high-speed". "High-speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by "high-speed" in the facts and circum- stances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establish- ment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presump- tion of innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be pre- sumed, subject of course to some statutory excep- tions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rash- ness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor". There is evidence to show that immediately before the truck turned turtle, there was a big jerk. It is not explained as to whether the jerk was because of the uneven road or mechanical failure. The motor vehicle in- spector who inspected the vehicle had submitted his report. That report is not forthcoming from the CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 14/18 record and the inspector was not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. This is a serious infirmity and lacuna in the prosecution case."
19. The testimony of PW3 Mayank further dents the case of the prosecution for the reason that he has given the contradictory versions so far as the identification of accused is concerned. At the one hand, he has deposed that driver of the offending vehicle was apprehended by public persons while trying to flee away. However, while contradicting himself, he asserted to have seen the accused first time at the hospital.
20. The versions of PW-5 Ct. Vikas Kumar and PW-7 HC De- vender also carries the serious contradictions. For example, PW- 5 deposed to have visited the spot alongwith IO and found no eye-witness present there. Whereas, PW-7 deposed to have vis- ited the spot along with PW-5 Ct. Vikas within 15-20 minutes of receiving the call of incident. He further asserted to have found public persons present at the spot by qualifying that none of them agreed to give statement. Apparently, both the version can- not stand together. Moreover, PW-7/IO did not elaborate as to the efforts made in joining the public persons to the investigation of the case. The non-joining of independent public witnesses, de- spite their availability, further frustrate the case of the prosecu- tion.Other witnesses are formal in nature and their evidence are of no avail to the case of the prosecution.
CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 15/18
21. In the case of 'Kulwinder Singh Vs. Kafeel Ahmad' Cr. L.P. No. 478 of 2011, decided on 04.01.2013 Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held that the basic principle in criminal law is that the guilt of the respondent/accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and if there is any slightest doubt about the commission of an offence then the benefit has to accrue him.
22. Thus, in view of the totality of circumstances and the settled legal positions as discussed above, the case attempted to be built by the prosecution, appears to be suffering from fatal infirmities so much so that it goes directly to the root of the case and shakes the very edifice on which the case of the complainant rests. It appears also relevant to acknowledge and appreciate the fact that criminal conviction entails enigmatic and stigmatic experiences and exposures for the accused and thus it becomes of paramount importance to demand evidence of unimpeachable character and of unambiguous nature. From the above discussion and findings, in my considered view accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt.
23. In view of the above analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred due to negligence of accused Pintu Kumar alone and of no one else. Prosecution has also failed to establish that the accident was not caused by any contributory negligence on the part of the injured. Thus, I hold CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 16/18 that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Pintu Kumar is acquitted of the offence u/s 279/337/338 IPC.
24. So far as allegations against the accused u/s 471 IPC is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that accused fraudulently or dishonestly used his driving license No. P-71916 (UP) by producing it before IO HC Devender Singh as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that same was forged document. To prove the aforesaid allegation, prosecution examined PW9 Ms. Manisha Trivedi who brought the driving license record maintained in the authority. This witness deposed that as per record, there is no entry in the record for issuance of D/L No. P-71916 dated 13.06.2017 and so no license on the said number has been issued by his authority to any person. Witness further deposed that a letter regarding the verification of this license was received in his authority from Delhi Police and after checking the record he gave report in the encircled portion 'X1' of the document Ex. PW7/F. That no license in the name of Pintu Kumar on the above said number was issued by his office. Except, formal suggestion, nothing could be elucidated to contradict or dispute the testimony of this witness. PW-9 has categorically stated that no such license Ex. PW9/DA was issued by the concerned authority. No explanation has been offered as to from where the impugned license was procured. It is to be noted that the procurement of driving license goes through certain process. It requires its holder to successfully clear driving CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 17/18 as well other tests in the presence of transport officials. Accused is silent as to the source from which the driving license in question was arranged. No explanation whatsoever has come forth on behalf of accused with regard to the allegation of using forged DL as genuine one. As such, it can be safely and inescapably deduced that accused fraudulently or dishonestly used his driving license No. P-71916 (UP) by producing it before IO HC Devender Singh as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that same was forged document. Accordingly, accused Pintu Kumar stands convicted for the offence u/s 471 IPC.
25. Bail bond in terms of Section 437A Cr.PC has been obtained from the convict (since acquitted for the offence U/s 279/337/338 IPC) in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I A.D (Del.) 389.
26. Now, to come up for arguments on sentence on 25.08.2022.
Copy of judgment be given dasti to convict free of cost.
Digitally signed DEEPAK by DEEPAK KUMAR Announced in the open Court KUMAR Date: 2022.08.23 16:59:28 +0530
on 23.08.2022 (containing total 18 pages) (DEEPAK KUMAR-I) ACMM (North-West) ROHINI COURTS DELHI CASE No. 534840/2016 FIR No. 147/12 PS Bharat Nagar State Vs. Pintu Kumar page 18/18