Delhi District Court
State vs . Anand Singh on 7 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR
MM-02: NORTH-WEST: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 222/04
PS: Kanjhawala
U/s. 279/304A IPC
State vs. Anand Singh
Date of Institution of case: 03.02.2005
Date of Judgment reserved: 27.02.2018
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 07.04.2018
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case : 529822/16
Date of commission of offence : 09.09.2004
Name of complainant : ASI Raj Singh
No. 11019/DAP
PS: Kanjhawala, Delhi.
Name and address of accused : Anand Singh
s/o Suraj Bhan,
r/o Village Rani Khera,
Delhi.
Offence complained of : 279/304A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of order : 07.04.2018
Final order : Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The accused has been sent to face trial under Section 279/304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 09.09.2004 at 09:45 am at Village Jyonti, Garhi Road Mod, Near Mandir, Delhi, he while driving a Tractor with trolley bearing registration no. HR-13B-2151 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and caused death (not amounting to culpable homicide) of Chatter Singh s/o FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 1/12 Late Sh. Suraj Mal. On the basis of the above allegations, the present FIR No. 222/04 was registered at police station Kanjhawala and the accused has been charged with the above offence.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Copy 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. 251 Cr.P.C. charging the accused U/s. 279/304A IPC was framed on 09.08.2007, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The Statement of Accused was recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C on 04.12.2017 and all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to the accused to which the accused replied that he had not caused any accident and he was not driving the tractor on the day of the incident. He was brought by the police from his house. Accused stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence.
4. The prosecution was thereafter given opportunity to prove the accusation against the accused. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses. PW-1 Rambir has deposed that on 09.09.2004 he came to know that his father had met with an accident at Jyonti Garhi road near mandir, who went for his work on bicycle with phawda and one cloth bag. He went to SGM hosital where he idenitified the dead body of his father. His statement EX. PW.1/A was recorded by the IO bearing his signatures at point A. He also identified the case property i.e. bicycle, phawda and one cloth bag which were exhibited as EX. P.1 to P.3.
5. PW-2 Randhir has deposed that on 09.09.2004 he came to know that his elder FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 2/12 brother had met with an accident at Jyonti Garhi road near mandir. He went to SGM hosital where he idenitified the dead body of his elder brother. His statement was recorded by the IO.
6. PW-3 Umedh Singh has desposed that on the day of the incident i.e. on 09.09.2004 at about 9:30 a.m, Chattar Sngh (deceased) resident of village Jyonti, was going on bicycle towards Tikri Border for work and he was also going on his bicycle to his work. He was following Chattar Singh. Then, a tractor with a trolley bearing no. HR-13B-2151 which was being driven by its driver at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner, struck against the cycle of Chattar Singh from behind, due to the impact Chattar Singh fell down on the ground and died at spot. The driver of tractor ran from there after leaving the vehicle there and he saw him running from there. Accused was correctly identified. He further deposed that it was the fault of the driver of tractor as Chattar Singh (deceased) was going on the left side of the road at a very moderate speed and offending vehicle was being driven at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner.
During cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, he deposed that accident occurred in his presence. He informed the son of deceased at his house as well as to the police officials. Many villagers gathered there and the dead body was removed to hospital with police staff. Many villagers accompanied him to the PS. Written complaint was given in police station which was also signed by him, EX. PW.3/DA. The contents of EX. PW.3/DA were read over to the witness who admittted the same. He admitted that vehicle no. was not mentioned in EX. PW.3/DA and also that he had not mentioned in EX. PW.3/DA that accident took place in his presence. He did not know when the tractor was taken into police possession. He admitted that tractor was not taken into custody in his presence. He further admitted that accused was not FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 3/12 arrested in his presence. He admitted that EX. PW.3/DB was signed by him at point A but denied knowledge to the character of document on which his signature was taken. He admitted that he signed the documents at the instance of IO in police station without knowing the contents of the same. He denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accident or that he was not present at the spot. He admitted that he again visited with villagers. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW-4 Lady HC Saroj Bala has deposed that on 09.09.2004 she was posted at PS Kanjhawala as duty officer from 8 a.m to 4 p.m. On that day at about 12:20 p.m, Ct. Ramesh had brought a rukka sent by ASI Raj Singh and on the basis of the rukka, she recorded the FIR of the present case exhibited as EX. PW.4/A bearing her signatures at point A. She also made endorsement on the rukka exhibited as EX. PW.4/B bearing her signatures at point A. She had also brought the original FIR containing the aforesaid FIR as well as Roznamcha in respect of DD No. 21B dated 09.09.2004, EX. PW.4/C. The DD entry was regarding the informtion of fatal accident occurred at village Jyonti and the said information was received by her at about 10 a.m.
8. PW-5 J.S. Pawar, Engineer Automobile, deposed that on 13.09.2004, he mechanically inspected the vehicle i.e. one tractor with trolley no. HR-13 B- 2151 on the request of ASI Raj Singh of PS Kanjhawala at police station. After mechanically inspecting the said vehicle, he prepared his deailed report which was exhibited as EX.PW5/A bearing his signatures at point A. Tractor with trolley was fit for road test.
9. PW-6 HC Jagdish deposed that on 12.09.2004 he was posted at PS Kanjhawala and on that day, he joined investigation in that case with IO ASI FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 4/12 Raj Singh. On that day, he with IO went to village Jyonti to search the accused and where they inquired from the public persons regarding the above said vehicle and collected information that the offending tractor would come from the side of Kanjhawala and go towards Bahadurgarh via Village Jyonti. Umed Singh also joined them. Thereafter, they all held nakabandi at Garhi Road ahead of village Jyonti. After some time, accused present today in the court came from the side of village Jyonti in a tractor trolley. Umed Singh identified him as a same person who had caused accident. They stopped the tractor and on demand accused, who was driving the tractor at that time had produced documents of tractor and his driving licence to IO. IO also gave information to the owner of the tractor, Mahavir Singh, who also came at the spot. IO gave notice U/s 133 of M V Act to the owner and after verification accused Anand Singh was arrested. IO prepared arrest memo already EX. PW.3/DB bearing his signatures at point X and also prepared personal search memo EX. PW.6/A. The tractor no. HR-13B-2151 were seized with trolley vide EX. PW.6/B. The driving licence of accused was also seized vide memo EX. PW.6/C. Thereafter, they all came back to PS and the accused was then released on police bail. His statement was recorded by the IO.
During cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused he deposed that he was a witness to recovery of tractor, trolley, D/L of the accused as well as of the arrest of the accused. The tractor with trolley was recovered from Village Garhi, Rindhala Mod. He admitted that on 12.09.2004, the said vehicle was in workshop at Bahadurgarh from where it was recovered. He could not tell about non-mentioning of the same in the FIR and the complaint. However, the offending vehicle was recovered at the instance of Umed Singh.
10. PW-7 Ct. Ramesh Kumar had deposed that on 09.09.2004 he was posted in PS Kanjhawala and on that day, he was present in the PS, accordingly, he was FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 5/12 called telephonically by ASI Raj Singh. Thereafter, he reached at the spot and joined ASI Raj Singh and Ct. Joginder. At that time, they were getting the spot photographed. One dead body alongwith a cycle, one bag and one kassi/fawda were lying on the spot. Dead body was identified by the villagers and name of the deceased was revealed as Chattar Singh. Dead body was sent to SGM Hospital through Ct. Joginder. IO seized the aforesaid cycle alongwith other articles vide memo EX. PW.7/A bearing his signatures at point A. IO prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered through him. Thereafter, statement of photographer was recorded and case property was deposited in malkhana. Witness correctly identified the photographs of the spot mark A1 to A6 and the case properties i.e. Cycle EX. P.1, Bag EX. P.2 & Fawda EX. P.3.
11. PW-8 Mahavir Singh had deposed that he was the registered owner of tractor bearing registration no. HR-13B-2151. He stated that his tractor met with an accident on 09.09.2004 and on that day accused Anand Singh was driving the same. One notice U/s 133 M V Act was served upon him EX. PW.8/A bearing his signatures at point X. He also got released the aforesaid tractor vide superdarinama EX. PW.8/B bearing his signatures at point A.
12. PW-9 Ct. Joginder Singh had deposed that on 09.09.2004, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala and on that day, on receiving DD No. 21 B, he alongwith IO ASI Raj Singh reached at Jyonti Garhi Road where they found one cycle in accidental condition at the side of the road on the soil. One dead body with one bag was also lying there. No offending vehicle or eye witness was found on the spot. In the meanwhile, Ct. Ganesh reached at the spot with a photographer and photographs of the spot mark A-1 to A-6 got clicked. He took the dead body to mortuary at SGM Hospital through a private tempo. Thereafter, IO also reached at mortuary and identification of the dead body was conducted. Name FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 6/12 of the deceased was revealed as Chattar Singh s/o Suraj mal. Postmortem of the deceased got conducted and dead body was handed over to his relatives. Identification statement in this regard EX. PW.9/A bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, they went to Jyonti Village and on the enquiry, they met an eye-witness who disclosed that accident was caused by a tractor bearing registration no. HR-13B-2151 and IO recorded statement of the eye witness. His statement was also recorded by the IO.
13. PW-10 SI Raj Singh had deposed that on 09.09.2004, he was posted at PS Kanjhawala as ASI and on receiving the DD, he alongwith Ct. Joginder reached at Jyonti Garhi Road. On the spot, they found one dead body of a person who was aged about 57 to 58 years at the side of the road. One cycle in accidental condition, one phawda/kassi and one bag were also lying on the spot near the deadbody. Thereafter, one photographer was called and photographs mark A-1 to A-6 got clicked. Some villagers gathered at the spot, disclosed that the name of the deceased was Chattar Singh. Dead body was sent to mortuary at SGM Hospital on a private tempo alongwith Ct. Joginder. He stated that as no eye witness was available at the spot, therefore, he preapred the rukka on the basis of DD No. 21. Rukka was exhibited as EX. PW.10/A bearing his signatures at point A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Ramesh. He prepared the site plan on his own EX. PW.10/B bearing his signatures at point A. He recorded statement of the photographer on the spot. He seized the cycle, bag, kassi vide seizure memo EX. PW.7/A bearing his signatures at point B. Thereafter, he went to SGM Hospital where the postmortem of the deceased got conducted. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Joginder reached at village Jyonti in search of the accused and offending vehicle. Upon inquiry, one eye-witness of the case Umed Singh disclosed that accident was caused by a FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 7/12 tractor bearing registration no. HR-13B-2151. His statement was recorded by the IO and case property was deposited in the malkhana.
On 12.09.2004, he alongwith eyewitness Umed Singh and Ct. Jagidsh went at Jyonti Garhi Road and after some time the offending tractor came on the road on the identification of Umed Singh, the aforesaid tractor was stopped. Umed Singh also identified its driver and his name was revealed as Anand Singh. He checked the dcouments of the aforesaid tractor bearing registration no. HR-13B-2151 and name of the owner was revealed as Mahavir Singh. The owner of the said tractor was called at the spot and notice u/s 133 of M V Act EX. PW10/C was served upon him. Thereafter, accused Anand Singh was arrested and personally searched, vide arrest memo already EX. PW.3/DB and vide personal search memo already EX. PW.6/A, both bearing his signatures at point B. Rs. 50/- were recovered from his personal search. Accused was taken to police station and where he was released on bail. Thereafter, he collected the postmortem report of deceased Chattar Singh EX. PW.10/D. Mechanical inspection of tractor got conducted EX. PW.5/A. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed before the concerned court. PW-10 also correctly identified the case property i.e. one phawda/kassi, one bag and one cycle, already exhibited as EX. P. 1 to EX. P.3.
14. There is no PW-11. PW-12 Joginder had deposed that on 09.09.2004 he was present at his shop in the name and style of J K Studio, then one police official came to his shop. Thereafter, he went to Gali Rindhala Road where he clicked photographs of the spot where one dead body alongwith one cycle was lying. Photographs are already marked A-1 to A-6.
During his cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, he denied the suggestions that he never visited the spot and clicked the aforesaid photographs or he never gave the aforesaid negative to anyone.
FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 8/12
15. Vide separate statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, accused had admitted issuance of MLC EX. PW.10/D. Thereafter, Defence evidence was closed vide order dated 04.12.2017. Final arguments were heard in this case on 27.02.2018.
16. I have cogitated over the submissions made by Ld. APP for the state and ld.
Counsel for the accused. Before adverting myself to appreciation of evidence for deciding the present case, it would be prudent to discuss the penal provisions involved in the case for arriving at just decision. The penal provisions are reproduced in verbatim as follows:
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 term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Section 304A IPC: Causing death by negligence-
"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."
In a nutshell, the prosecution has to prove that the accused while driving the tractor in a rash or negligent manner caused the death of Chattar Singh.
17. PW-3 Umed Singh, is the only eye witness of the accident, he testified that while going to work on his bicycle on the day of incident, he was following the deceased (who was also on his bicycle), a tractor with a trolley bearing no. HR-
FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 9/12 13B-2151 being driven at a very high speed and in rash or negligent manner struck against the cycle of deceased from behind, due to the impact the deceased fell down on the ground and died at spot. Apart from this bald statement of rash or negligent driving, there is nothing on record that proves rash or negligent manner of driving of tractor. It is not the deposition of the eye witness that the tractor was being driven in a zig-zag manner. No attempt has been made by the prosecution to establish that there was any rash or negligent act on the part of the driver/accused. The speed at which the tractor was being driven is not established. A written complaint dated 10.09.2004 signed by all the villagers (including eye witness Umed Singh) was given to SHO, PS:Kanjhawala, wherein, it has clearly been mentioned that the tractor no. of offending vehicle could not be noted down. This complaint no where mentions Umed Singh as an eye witness of the incident. Rather this complaint mentions Rambir s/o Chattar Singh as the person who reached at the spot. It intrigues this court as to how Umed Singh remembered the tractor no. at the time of recording his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 12.09.2004 when in the complaint Ex.PW3/DA dated 10.09.2004 duly signed by him no tractor no. was mentioned. He also did not mention in the complaint dated 10.09.2004 that he was the eye witness of the accident. Moreover, according to PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 no eye-witness was found at the accident site making presence of PW-3 and his statement doubtful. Surely, had he been at the spot he would have mentioned about his presence and tractor trolley no. in the written complaint Ex. PW3/DA given next day in the police station. By all accounts, it seems that PW-3 Umed Singh has not seen the accident and was later on included as a witness to beef up the case of the prosecution. Hence, his statement cannot form the only basis for convicting the accused, the same ought to be corroborated by other independent evidence.
FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 10/12
18. PW-3 stated that the driver left the vehicle on spot and further in his cross-
examination he revealed that the offending vehicle was not seized by the police in his presence. He also admitted that the accused was not arrested in his presence. Whereas PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 deposed that no offending vehicle or eye-witness was found on the spot. Further they stated that during investigation the eye-witness (PW-3) met them in village Jyonti and they arrested the accused (while he was driving the offending vehicle and appeared at the naka) and seized the offending vehicle at the instance of PW-3. Surprisingly, PW-6 in his cross-examination admitted that the said vehicle was parked in workshop at Bahadurgarh from where it was recovered at the instance of PW-3. The arrest memo and the seizure memo have not been duly proved as diametrically opposite statements have been made by prosecution witnesses regarding the arrest of accused and seizure of offending tractor.
19. The site plan was made by the IO on his own. The complaint Ex. PW3/DA dated 10.09.2004 mentions Rambir s/o Chattar Singh as the person who saw the offending tractor standing at the spot. Even on 12.09.2004 PW-3 informed the IO that he was the eye witness of the accident, however, the IO did not even bother to take Rambir or Umed Singh to the spot for preparation of a proper site plan. The site plan in the case is of no help whatsoever and seems to be a sign of shoddy investigation. Furthermore, the photographs of the spot do not show any sign of rash or negligent driving as there are no scratch marks on the road. The prosecution failed to prove the presence of any vehicle at accidental site, leave aside the question of rash or negligent manner of driving altogether.
FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 11/12
20. To conclude, the origin of arrest memo and seizure memo is doubtful.
Contradictory statements have been made by the prosecution witnesses regarding the same. The only eye-witness of the case is unreliable. The site plan and photographs of the spot hardly reveal anything about the accident. The eye-witness seems to be a planted one. Even the presence of offending vehicle at the spot has not been proved. Therefore, in my considered opinion prosecution has failed to establish that death was occasioned by either rash or negligent driving of the vehicle or any negligent act of accused so as to attract the provisions of Sec. 279 and 304A PC. Accordingly, accused Anand Singh, S/o Suraj Bhan is acquitted of the charge U/s. 279/304A of IPC.
Announced in the open court today i.e. on 7th April, 2018 (ANURAG THAKUR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE -02 ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI This judgment consists of 12 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
FIR No. 222/04 State v. Anand Singh Pg. 12/12