Delhi District Court
State vs . Tarun Pal on 19 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OFMS.SHAGUN, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. TARUN PAL
FIR NO. 1095/2014
PS: MOTI NAGAR
U/S: 279/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
Case no. : 72962/2014
Date of commission of offence : 07.11.2014
Date of institution of the case : 11.04.2016.
Name of the complainant : ASI SURAT SINGH
Name of the accused and address : TARUN PAL S/O SH.
SOMUDUTT, R/O: H. NO.
18/156, EAST MOTI BAGH,
SARAI ROHILLA, DELHI.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 279/304-A IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : ACQUITTED
Date on which reserved for judgment : 17.04.2023.
Date of pronouncing of judgment : 19.04.2023
******************************************************************************************************************************* FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page
1. BRIEF FACTUAL POSITION:-
1.1 This is the prosecution of accused Tarun Pal, pursuant to charge sheet filed by PS Moti Nagar U/s 279/304-A IPC, subsequent to the investigation carried out in FIR No.1095/2014.
1.2 As per the prosecution, on 07.11.2014, at about 08:40AM, at pillar no. 333, Main Nazafgarh Road opp. Kailash park, Delhi, the accused was driving a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-9SL-8704 in a rash and negligent manner. While driving so, he hit one pedestrian, namely, Sh.
Krishan Gopal and caused his death. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offences punishable U/s 279/304-A IPC.
1.3 Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. After hearing the arguments, notice for offences punishable under section 279/304-A IPC was served upon the accused on 18.05.2016 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
2.1 The prosecution, in support of the present case, has examined 12 witnesses in total.
S. No. Name of the Documents Dates of Dates of Prosecution Exhibited in examinatio cross-
witnesses. Evidence. n in chief. examinatio n.
PW-1 Sh. Ramesh (I) Complaint- Ex. 29.07.2016 29.07.2016.
Chand PW1/A. &
(I) Photographs of
offending vehicle -
Ex. P1 (Colly.)
FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page
PW-2 HC Raj Singh (I) Deposition of 20.10.2016 20.10.2016
motorcycle no. DL-
9SL-8704 in
Malkhana vide entry
no. 3212/14 in
register no. 19 - Ex.
PW2/A.
PW-3 Ms. Ruchi Sood (I) Handing over 20.10.2016 20.10.2016.
memo of dead body-
Ex. PW3/A.
PW-4 Mr. Amit Sood. (I) Handing over 20.10.2016 20.10.2016.
memo of dead body-
Ex. PW3/A.
PW-5 HC Satya (I) DD entry no. 15A- 20.12.2016 20.12.2016.
Prakash Ex. PW5/A;
(II) Copy of FIR- Ex.
PW5/B;
(III) Endorsement on
rukka- Ex. PW5/C; &
(IV) DD entry no .
23A- Ex. PW5/D.
PW-6 Ct. Kamal - 20.12.2016 20.12.2016.
PW-7 Retd. (I) Mechanical 16.05.2017 16.05.2017
ASI/Tehcnical inspection report of
Devender offending
Kumar motorcycle- Ex.
PW7/A.
PW-8 Sh. Himanshu (I) Certificate u/s 65B 07.06.2018 07.06.2018
of Indian Evidence
Act qua photographs
of offending vehicle-
Ex. PW8/A.
PW-9 Retd. SI Surat (I) Rukka/Tehrir- Ex. 19.07.2019 19.07.2019
Singh PW9/A;
(II) Site plan- Ex.
PW9/B;
(III) Notice u/s 133 of
M.V. Act given to its
owner- Ex. PW9/C;
FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page
(IV) Seizure memo of
DL, insurance of
accused- Ex.
PW9/D;
(V) Seizure memo of
offending vehicle -
Ex. PW9/E; &
(VI) Arrest memo of
accused- Ex. PW9/F.
PW-10 SI Mahavir - 14.02.2020 14.02.2020
Singh
PW-11 SI Shashi Kumar - 30.09.2022 30.09.2022
PW-12 Dr. Rajendra (I) MLC bearing no. 28.03.2023 28.03.2023.
Kumar 1485 of deceased-
Srivastava Ex. PW12/A.
2.2 After completion of evidence of all the witnesses, PE was closed in
the present matter vide order dated 28.03.2023 at the request of the prosecution. Vide separate statements of accused u/s 294 CrPC accused admitted the PM Report which is exhibit A1.
3. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C :
3.1 Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him, to which he pleaded innocence, and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present matter, and no offence was committed by him.
Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
4. ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Ld. APP for state has argued that on a combined reading of FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page prosecution witnesses' testimony, offences U/s 279 & 304-A are proved beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused.
4.2 On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused has argued that there is no legally admissible evidence against the accused. It is further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no proof of negligence on his part.
5. BRIEF STATEMENT OR THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
5.1 Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused have been heard. Evidences and documents on record have been perused carefully.
5.2. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused is indicted for the offences U/s 279/304-A IPC.
(a) Section 279 IPC provides punishment for the offence of driving a vehicle 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".
(b) Section 304-A IPC provides punishment for causing death to any person by doing any rash or negligent Act, not amounting to culpable homicide.
5.3 To bring home the guilt of the accused U/s 279 and 304-A of IPC in road accident cases resulting in death of a person, following ingredients are required to be proved:-
a). That the accused was the person driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time.
b). That the accused drove the same in a rash and negligent manner.
c). That by said rash and negligent driving, caused death of the victim (in FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page case of Section 304-A of IPC) was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by way of rash and negligent driving of the accused.
Let us examine the existence of all these ingredients one by one.
5.4 While the first ingredient needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of eye -witnesses and circumstantial evidence, the third ingredient is self-explanatory and the fourth ingredient needs to be proved by medical evidence; it is the second ingredient which requires interpretation and explanation. The second requirement for proving the guilt of the accused is that the death or grievous hurt had been caused as the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. It has been held in Bhala Chand Waman Rao Pathe Vs. State of Maharashtra SC 1964, there is a difference between a rash act and a negligent act. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable, neglect or failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and to guard against injury, either to the public generally, or to an individual in a particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of person to have adopted. Negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The imputability arises from the neglect of civic duty of circumspection. On the other hand culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him, and if he had exercised caution, he would have had the consciousness that illegal consequences may follow, but he acted in a vain hope that they will not, and often, with the belief that the actor has taken FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness.
5.4.1. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ratna Shalvam Vs. State of Karnataka 2007 3 SCC 474 that Section 304 A of IPC applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. This provision is directed at offences outside the range of Section 299 and 300 of IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and are the direct cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements U/s 304-A IPC. A question whether the accused's conduct 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 sufficient, considering all the circumstances of the case.
5.5 Coming to the question of reliability/ evidentiary value, three ingredients were required to be established by the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which are:-
(i) Identification of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle;
(ii) Identification of the seized vehicle as the offending vehicle;
(iii) Rashness and negligence on the part of the accused indriving the vehicle, causing injury to the victim.
(iv) Death of the victim being the direct result of injuries so caused.
5.5.1 As per the first ingredient, the prosecution has burden to proof that accused was driving the offending vehicle. In this regard, PW1 complainant was examined who deposed that on the date of incident FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page he noted down the registration number, however, he could not remember the same due to lapse of time. The witness failed to identify the accused person in court. A notice u/s 133 of MV Act was served upon the registered owner which is Ex. PW9/C, however, the said witness was not examined by the prosecution and there is no other independent evidence to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the date of incident. In these circumstances it cannot be stated with conviction that accused was the one driving the offending vehicle on the date of occurrence.
5.6 Considering these finding only, there is no requirement of deciding the question of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused, as his identity as the driver itself has not been established. But this court proceeds to discuss the issue of negligence/ rashness too, given the nature of evidence in the present case.
5.7 PW-1 is allegedly the sole eye witness. PW1 has deposed that the offending vehicle was coming from the side of Fun Cinema and when it reached pillar no. 332-333 Najafgarh road it hit a pedestrian. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was being driven in a normal speed. To establish rashness or negligence the manner of driving must be set out by the prosecution through aid of eye witnesses or any other independent evidence in nature of cctv footage/dash cameras etc. There is nothing on record to show the manner of driving by the accused except that it was driven in normal speed which does not show any aspect of rashness or negligence. It is not the case of the prosecution that the offending vehicle was being driven in a high speed and/ or in a zig-zag manner. No other alleged eye witness was present at the spot of occurrence.
FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page Therefore, none of these witnesses are eligible to comment upon the fact as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle had been driving the same in a rash and negligent manner.
5.8 As per the postmortem report, the cause of death of the victim is stated to be "...due to complications of cranio-cerebral injury, subsequent to road traffic accident" which makes it clear that the incident was the direct and proximate cause of death of the victim.
5.9 Accordingly, even though it has been established that the death of the victim was direct and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by him in the alleged incident, but since the identity of the accused as the offender, and rashness and negligence on the part of the accused has not been proved by the prosecution, the essential ingredients of under Section 279 and 304 A of IPC have not been satisfied, and therefore, the offence u/s 279 IPC as well as section 304-A IPC has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused namely Tarun Pal S/o Sh. Somdutt, R/O: H. NO. 18/156, East Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi is acquitted of all the charges in the present case.
5.10 As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ankush Shivjaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2013) 6 SCC 770] the Court must apply its mind to the question of victim compensation in every criminal case, and must disclose reasons for awarding/ refusing compensation. The aforesaid judgment also ruled that even where the cases end in acquittal or discharge, the duty lies upon the State to pay compensation. In the present case, it is not disputed that the victim Late Sh. Naresh Kumar (aged 22 years) succumbed to to the injuries suffered by him in the alleged incident. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to recommend the case of the dependents of the victim to the DLSA (West), for the conduct of enquiry for award of compensation u/s 357 A Cr.P.C. Copy of last two FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page pages of this judgment be sent to the DLSA (West).
Digitally signed by SHAGUN SHAGUN Date: 2023.04.19 15:57:09 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SHAGUN) COURT ON 19.04.2023 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 10 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
Digitally signed by SHAGUNSHAGUN Date: 2023.04.19 15:57:18 +0530 (SHAGUN) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 1095/2014, PS Moti Nagar , State Vs. Tarun Pal u/s: 279/304A IPC Page