Delhi District Court
State vs . Muni Ram on 21 August, 2013
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. MUKESH KUMAR, LD. ACMM :SOUTH DISTT.:
DISTRICT COURT SAKET: NEW DELHI
State Vs. Muni Ram
PS Saket
FIR No. 78/08
U/s 279/338 IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 02406R0434472009
b) Date of commission of offence : 21.11.2008
c) Name of the complainant, if any : ASI Virender Singh
PS Saket.
d) Name & address of accused : Sh. Muni Ram
S/o Sh.Jeet Ram
R/o H.No. 105/03, Village
Adhchini, New Delhi.
e) The offence complained off : U/s 279/338 IPC
f) The plea of accused : Not pleaded guilty.
g) Final order : Convicted
h) The date on which order was reserved: Not reserved for
h) The date of such order : 21.08.2013 State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -2- BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. By this judgment I shall dispose of case of the prosecution based on FIR No. 78/08 PS Saket.
2. The allegations against the accused as per the story of prosecution are that on 21.11.08, at about 6:00 AM at Khokha Market, Bus Stop, Saket New Delhi within the Jurisdiction of PS Saket, accused was driving the DTC bus bearing no. DL 1PB 1407 in a manner so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby accused has committed an offence punishable U/s 279 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.
Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner, accused struck against one Pedestrian Sh. Pyare Lal and caused Grivious injuries to him and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s 338 IPC within the cognizance of this court.
3. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. Accusation of allegations U/s 279/338 IPC were explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -3-
4. To prove their case, prosecution examined PW1 Sh. Kali Charan who deposed that on 10.11.2008, he went to Khoka Market at the Milk shop of one Sanjay which was located near the red light Khoka Market. At that time one Blue Line Bus stopped at the bus stop and the passengers were alighting from the bus meanwhile one DTC Bus bearing NO. DL 1 PB 5626 came from MB Road Side towards Khoka Market in a very high speed. The bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner. When one Payre Lal alighted from the bus, the said DTC bus struck against him and he sustained injuries on his legs. Someone called the police by dialing 100 number on which PCR van came to the spot and took the injured to the hospital. The driver of the said bus was correctly identified the him before the court and identity of the offending Vehicle / DTC Bus is not disputed by the accused.
5. PW2 Ct. Shri Bhagwan who deposed on oath that on 21.11.08, he was posted at PS Saket as constable and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 8:00PM. On that day on receipt of a call vide DD NO. 58 B, he alongwith ASI Virender Singh reached at the spot i.e. Khoka Market, Pushp Vihar, where they came to know that the injured had already been taken to the hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith the IO ASI Virender Singh reached at the JPN Trauma Centre, AIIMS, vide DD No. 59 B, there one Pyare Lal was State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -4- found admitted vide MLC No. 144331/08. As the injured was feeling severe pain, he requested to get his statement recorded later on. The eye witness was searched at Trauma Centre but no one was found there. Thereafter, endorsement was made on DD NO. 58 B and Tehrir was handed over to him for registration of the FIR at PS. He got the present case registered and came back at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR to the IO. His statement was recorded by the IO.
6. PW3 Ct. Shyam Babu who deposed that on 20.05.2009, he was posted at PS Saket and on that day he was present at the PS where accused Muni Ram came to the PS in response to the notice u/s 160 Cr.PC given by ASI Virender Singh and stated that on the day of accident he was driving the DTC bus bearing no. DL1PB4851 and caused the accident.
On 02.06.2009, he again joined the investigation with IO ASI Virender Singh and during investigation, accused Muni Ram was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B, both bears my signature at point A as he was produced by the DTC Inspector Sukhbir. The DL of the accused and duty slip of the bus were also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/C and PW3/D respectively, both bears his signature at point A. State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -5- On 09.06.2009, the photocopy of the RC, fitness and Insurance certificate of the offending bus were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/E and the offending bus was also taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW3/F, both the memos also bears his signature at point A. IO recorded his statement.
7. PW4 SI Virender Singh who deposed that on 21.11.08, he was posted as ASI at PS Saket and on that day, he received DD No. 58B regarding accident at Khokha Market, Bus Stand, Saket. Then, he alongwith Ct. Shri Bhagwan reached at the spot. There, he found that injured had already been shifted to the hospital and the offending vehicle of the accused was also not present at the spot. Thereafter, he received information vide DD No. 59B regarding admission of injured in Trauma Center, AIIMS. Then, he alongwith Ct. Shri Bhagwan reached at the Trauma Center. There, he found injured Sh. Pyare Lal was under treatment and concerned doctor declared him fit for statement but complainant refused to give his statement on that day as he was under severe pain. Then, he endorsed DD No. 58B and prepared rukka Ex. PW 4/A bearing his signature at point A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Shri Bhagwan. Then, he reached back to the spot and make inquiries but offending vehicle of the accused could not be traced. Later on one eye witness of the present case State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -6- namely Sh. Kali Charan met him. He recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.PC in which witness Kali Charan told the number of offending vehicle as DL1PB5626. He issued notice U/s 133 MV Act to the Manager of DTC Depot regarding inquiry of the driver of the said bus at the time of incident vide memo Ex. PW 4/B on which the said Depot Manager replied Vide Ex. PW 4/B1 that at the time of incident, bus no. DL1PB5626 was lying in the workshop of Depot. Later on, he made inquiries from the driver Kuldeep and conductor Anil of bus number DL1PB4851. They told him in their statement that at the time of incident, accused Muni Ram was driving bus no. DL1PB1407 and was deriving his bus behind their bus. Witness Kuldeep and Anil also told that at the time of incident when they stopped their bus at Khokha Market Bus stand and one of the passenger was getting down from their bus, accused came driving his bus behind them and negligently tried to over take their bus from left side and hit the injured. He recorded statement of Kuldeep and Anil U/s 161 Cr.PC. At the pointing out of Kuldeep, he prepared site plan Ex. PW 4/C bearing his signature at point A. Then, he issued notice U/s 133 of MV Act to the manager DTC Bus Depot which is Ex. PW 4/D bearing his signature at point A and received the reply. On 02.06.09, ATI Sukhbir Sharma produced the offending bus and driver Muni Ram in the PS. He seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex. State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -7- PW 3/F bearing his signature at point B, the copies of documents of vehicle vide seizure memo Ex. PW 3/E bearing his signature at point B, the DL of accused vide Ex. PW 3/C bearing his signature at point B. He also seized the duty slip and driver memo of the offending bus for the time of incident vide seizure memo Ex. PW 3/D bearing his signature at point B. The duty slip is Ex. PW 4/E and the copy of the above memo is Ex. PW 4/F. Then, he arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW 3/A and B, bearing his signatures at point B. Accused is correctly identified by him before the court. He also recorded the statement of injured Pyare Lal and other witnesses U/s 161 Cr.PC. He collected the MLC and received the opinion. After investigation, he prepared Chargesheet and filed the same before the court.
8. The accused has not disputed the genuineness of FIR and his statement is recorded U/s 294 Cr.PC on 13.04.2012 to this effect.
09. After the closure of PE, accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.PC in which no DE was lead by the accused.
10. Final arguments were heard at length.
I have gone through the documents on record, evidence and submissions forwarded by counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State.
11. As submitted by Ld. APP for the State that it is established on record that State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -8- accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and the accident was caused by the accused due to which injured sustained grievous injuries on his leg. Accused has been duly identified by PW01 Sh. Kali Charan and his testimony has been duly substantiated and corroborated by the statement of PW04 SI Virender Singh, IO of the case who deposed that during the course of investigation, he recorded statement of one eye witness namely Kali Charan, who gave the number of offending vehicle as DL 1PB 5626. Consequently, notice was served upon the concerned Depot Manager U/s 133 of MV Act and in reply to the said notice it was appraised by the Depot Manger that the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 5626 was not plying on the road on the day of incident as the said bus was stationed at the workshop and other vehicle i.e. DL 1PB 1407 was running instead of DL 1PB 5626. On the same time, as per schedule, accused was driving the offending vehicle in question. On the other hand, it is submitted by the Ld. defence counsel that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the accident and he has been implicated just because of the reason that accused was known to the eye witness and the conductor / driver of the other private bus which was plying on the route during in the same hours. They were having enmity with the accused as he was not allowing the conductor / driver of the private vehicle plying in the State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -9- same route to take passengers in their bus. It is further arrayed that witness Kali Charan is a interested witness in this case and who is deposing at the instance of IO as well as at the instance of conductor / driver of other private vehicle who were having enmity with the accused due to conduct of the accused as he was not allowing to take passengers from a particular bus stand. It is therefore, the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. Even, the eye witness was not able to depose anything regarding number of the offending vehicle and he has gave the number of offending vehicle as DL 1PB 5626 which was not at all plying on the road on the day of incident.
12. It is further submitted that on the day of incident, the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 1407 was plying on the road. It is further submitted that no accident has been caused by the accused and he has been falsely implicated in this case and the accident might have been caused by some other vehicle and case of accident has been planted upon the accused.
Ld. counsel for the accused prayed for acquittal of accused on the ground of disputed identity of the offending vehicle.
13. Although, accused has been duly identified by the eye witness Sh. Kali Charan whose testimony has been duly substantiated and corroborated by PW04, IO of the case. As per the story of the prosecution, the accident has State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -10- been caused in the morning hours when the injured was deboarding from a blue line bus and the accused was driving his vehicle left side to the stationed vehicle from which the passengers were deboarding and accused has caused the accident as a result of which injured sustained grievous injuries.
14. In the statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC, all the incriminating evidences have been put to the accused. This question was also put to the accused that whether he was driving the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 1407 at the time of accident or not and in reply of this question, although causing of accident has been denied as per the story of prosecution but it was not denied by the accused that he was not driving the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 1407 and the duty hours were same when the accident was caused. There may be a mistake on the part of eye witness in identity of the offending vehicle.
15. As submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that in the routine manner, particularly in the odd hours, when a particular vehicle used to ply on road, the every daily passengers who used to travel in the bus during particular hours used to know the number of vehicle also and in that sequence, the number of the offending vehicle might have been given by the eye witness as DL 1PB 5626 which was plying on the road in routine manner at a particular time. While, as per the DTC record, on the date of accident, the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -11- 5626 was not plying on the road on the day of incident and it was stationed in the workshop for repairing purposes. While, the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 1407 was plying on the road on the same route on which the bus DL 1PB 5626 used to ply in routine schedule. Moreover, as per the DTC record, accused was on duty on the date of accident and he was driving the vehicle bearing no. DL 1PB 1407 on the same route. Then, there is every possibility that the accused has been identified by the witness eye witness but witness might not be able to record the number of offending vehicle on the date of accident as the driver was identified by the witness.
16. Testimony of an eye witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. He has no reasons to omit real culprit and implicate falsely the accused person. It's a well settled law that once the eye version is given particularly by the eye witness himself, the Court would normally rely upon such version of the prosecution unless it suffers from serious infirmities or improvements. (State of Gujarat v. Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai, (Gujarat) (DB) 1990 Cri.L.J. 2531, Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab, (P&H) 2003 Cri.L.J. 3148) and Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696.
State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -12-
17. In the present case, I find no reasons why eye witness Kali Charan would falsely implicate the accused. No reasons why he would depose falsely, there being no previous enmity between them and in fact nothing on record to suggest that they were known to each other prior to the accident. This witness during his deposition elaborately narrated the circumstances in which the accident occurred as well as established the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle.
18. The Indian Evidence Act does not specify any particular number of witnesses required to prove a fact and a fact can be proved even by one witness whether he is official or independent public witness depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Law requires that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The Evidence Act does not lay down about any number of witnesses needed for proving a particular fact.(Ambika Prasad and Ano. Vs State 2002 (2) CRIMES 63 (SC) ,Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (SC) 2003 Cri.L.J. 3548, Mohamad Gugal Esa Mamasan Ger Alalah v. The King, AIR 1946 PC 3, Vadivelu Thevar v. The State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 , Guli Chand and others v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1974 SC 276, Vahula Bhushan @ Vehuna Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC 236, State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -13- Jagdish Prasad and others v. State of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1251, and Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar, 1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 308 (SC) : 1996(1) SCC 614, Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra, (SC) 2007(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 893 and Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973)2 SCC 793.
19. Hence, the accident as well as the fact that the accused was driver of the bus involved in the accident stands duly established.
20. Regarding the rash and negligent driving it is to be seen that what is rash/negligence varies from case to case and there cannot be any fixed parameters for judging rashness/negligence. At the same time, there cannot be any assumption/presumption of the same. Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. 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 or proper case 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 imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -14- Thus, the main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligation of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifferent to the harmful consequences resulting from it. Niranjan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (Delhi) 1997(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 320.
21. Meaning of expression negligent act and rashness came up for discussion in the case titled as Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, (SC) 2007(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 605 and the Hon'ble Apex Court Held : (1) A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it A rash act is a negligent act done precipitate ly.
(2) Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil con sequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law.
(3) Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -15- knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
22. Although, the accident is proved and the identity of the offending vehicle as well as accused is proved but in the present case, the injured could not be examined by the prosecution as he died even prior to the filing of chargesheet. Moreover, the doctor is also not examined by the prosecution to prove the MLC as well as the nature of injuries allegedly sustained by the injured. Since, it is not proved on record that the injured had sustained grievous injuries. Although, the injuries has been caused due to accident. Accordingly, in absence of the corroborative evidence to establish that the injured sustained grievous injuries, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence U/s 338 IPC and he can only be convicted for Simple Injuries caused to the injured.
23. Since, it is established on record that accused was driving the offending vehicle on the day of accident and he has been duly identified by the eye witness and testimony of the eye witness is duly substantiated and corroborated with documentary evidence as well as statement given by the IO.
24. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -16- Accordingly, accused Muni Ram S/o Sh. Jeet Ram is convicted in this case for the offences U/s 279/337 IPC.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 21st August, 2013 (Mukesh Kumar)
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South Distt. Saket Courts Complex
New Delhi
State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC
-17-
State Vs. Muni Ram
PS Saket
FIR No. 78/08
U/s 279/337 IPC
21.08.2013
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel alongwith accused Muni Ram on bail.
Final arguments were already heard.
Today case is listed for final judgment.
Vide separate judgment announced and dictated in the open court today, the accused Muni Ram S/o Sh. Jeet Ram is convicted for the offences U/s 279/337 IPC in this case.
Be put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 24.08.2013.
Announced in the open court
today i.e. 21st August, 2013 (Mukesh Kumar)
Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
South Distt. Saket Courts Complex
New Delhi
State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC
-18-
State Vs. Muni Ram
PS Saket
FIR No. 78/08
U/s 279/337 IPC
27.08.2013
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict in person with counsel Sh. Jitender Tyagi.
Today case is fixed for arguments on the sentence.
Submissions heard at length.
As submitted by the Ld. APP for the State that convict has caused grievous injuries to the injured and therefore he may be punished with maximum sentence as provided under the law. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. defence counsel that convict is the sole bread earner of his family and he is a Govt. Employee in DTC department. It is further submitted that he is not having any previous history or any involvement in any case of like nature or otherwise and he is also having responsibility of his family to look after. It is submitted that lenient view may be taken while serving the sentence to the accused. It is further submitted that the family members of injured is already compensated before the MACT Court and the award is already passed in their favour.
State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -19- In view of the submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. defence counsel for convict and taking into consideration the fact that compensation award is already passed by the MACT Court on 09.07.2013 as informed by the counsel for the accused as well as by the accused.
I have gone through the records carefully. Accused never missed any date, while, he is facing trial since 2008. As submitted by the counsel for the accused that two years ago, the young son of the accused had expired leaving behind his widow and two minor daughters. The responsibility to look after the family of his deceased son is also upon the accused. It is further submitted by the accused that he is at the verge of retirement from his service from DTC and any severe punishment may ruin his carrier and also affect the retirement benefits. He prayed for mercy and lenient view.
Heard.
In view of the submissions made by counsel for the accused as well as Ld. APP for the State, as the accused is not having any previous involvement in the similar kind of cases and he is at the verge of retirement and having big family to look after, including the widow of his son and minor grand daughter. The accused is facing trial for last more than 4 years and accused have never missed any date. Moreover, no severe punishment is provided U/s State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC -20- 279/337 IPC. Accordingly, keeping in view the facts and circumstances, sentence of the accused for the offence U/s 279/337 IPC is admonished.
His bail bond stands cancelled. Surety discharged. Endorsement on documents if any, be cancelled. Original documents if any, be returned to its rightful claimant against proper receipt.
Copy of Judgment and Order be supplied to the accused free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Mukesh Kumar) ACMM/SD/Saket/ 27.08.2013 State Vs. Muni Ram FIR No. 78/08, PS Saket U/s 279/338 IPC