Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/111/2000 on 9 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Khalid Hussain
FIR No. 111/2000
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 279/304A IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 893/2/2000
Date of Institution : 03.01.2001
Date of Commission of Offence : 22.02.2000
Name of the complainant : HC Baljeet Singh No. 116/W
Name & address of the accused : Khalid Hussain
S/o Mohd. Matu @ Sharif
R/o Village Niwada PS Goripur
District Baghpat, UP.
Offence complained of : 279/304 A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 29.11.2014
Date of announcing of judgment : 09.01.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case u/s 279/304A IPC.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2000 at about 2.40 am at outer ring road in front of Sunder Vihar gate, DTC bus stop, Paschim State v. Khalid Hussain U/s 279/304A IPC 1/8 FIR No. 111/2000 PS Paschim Vihar Vihar, the accused Khalid Hussain was found driving a half body truck bearing no. UP 14 4850 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. The accused while driving the said truck in a rash and negligent manner hit one pedestrian namely Rakesh @ Badami with his truck and caused his death. The accused fled away from the spot. Later on, on 27.02.2000, the accused was produced in the police station by the truck owner. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 279/304A IPC. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C for offence under Section 279/304A IPC was framed against him by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 15.10.2003 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses i.e (1) Dr. A. K. Sharma (2) HC Bhudev (3) J. S. Pawar (4) Bhimsen (5) Ct. Ami Lal (6) Ct. Surya Prakash (7) Dilshad (8) Subhash Chand (9) Jai Bhagwan (10) ASI Daljeet Singh.
5. PW-1 Dr. A. K. Sharma had conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Rakesh Kumar. He deposed that the cause of death was head injury following road traffic accident. The detailed postmortem report is Ex. PW1/A. State v. Khalid Hussain U/s 279/304A IPC 2/8 FIR No. 111/2000 PS Paschim Vihar
6. PW-2 HC Bhudev deposed that on the intervening night of 21/22.02.2000 he was posted at PS Paschim Vihar as duty officer and had recorded the present FIR (Ex.PW2/A) on the basis of rukka sent by HC Daljeet Singh through Ct. Narender. He handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Narender and made endorsement on tehrir which is Ex.PW2/B.
7. PW-3 J. S. Pawar deposed that he had conducted the mechanical inspection of truck no. UP 14-4850 on the request of IO. His detailed report is Ex.PW3/A. He deposed that there was fresh damage on the front grill of the truck and that the vehicle was fit for road test.
8. PW-4 is the father of deceased who had deposed that he had identified the dead body of his son at Safdarjung hospital mortuary vide memo Ex.PW4/A.
9. PW-5 Ct. Ami Lal deposed that on 27.02.2000 one Kamal Jain had came to PS Paschim Vihar along with the accused. He handed over the copy of DL, RC and insurance and permit to the IO. The accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Insurance and permit were seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C.
10. PW-6 Ct. Surya Pratap had deposed that on 22.02.2000 he handed over DD No.67B to the IO, which was sent by HC Bhudev.
11. PW-7 Dilshad had deposed that he had got released the truck no.UP 14 4850 on superdari on 22.02.2000 on basis of Authority letter. The real owner of the truck is Kamal Jain. The further examination in chief of PW-7 was deferred.
State v. Khalid Hussain U/s 279/304A IPC 3/8 FIR No. 111/2000 PS Paschim Vihar However on 02.09.2014 vide his separate statement, the accused stated that he did not dispute the identity of the said truck.
12. PW-8 Subhash Chand was the brother in law of deceased and he identified his dead body at Safdarjung mortuary vide memo Ex.PW8/A.
13. PW-9 Jai Bhagwan deposed that he is a farmer. He could not recall the exact date of incident but deposed that it was in the year 2002. At that time, he was working as a guard at white house, Paschim Vihar. On that night, at about 2.30
- 3.00 am, one passerby informed him that an accident had taken place on the main road of Paschim Vihar. The witness deposed that he had not seen the accident nor had he gone to the place of accident and hence he could neither identify the driver nor could he tell the number of the offending vehicle. The witness was declared hostile by the Ld. APP for State and permission was sought to cross examine the witness. Permission was granted. In the cross examination by the Ld. APP, the witness denied the suggestion that on the night of 22.02.2000 at about 2.10 am, he had seen the truck in question coming from Vikaspuri side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the pedestrian who was crossing the road. He denied the suggestion that he could identify the driver of the offending vehicle or the offending vehicle. He denied having given any statement to the police. He denied that he was deposing falsely. The witness deposed that he came to know that the driver of the offending vehicle was Khalid Hussain who had slipped away from the spot after the accident.
State v. Khalid Hussain U/s 279/304A IPC 4/8
FIR No. 111/2000 PS Paschim Vihar
14. PW-10 ASI Daljeet Singh deposed that on 22.02.2000 he along with Ct.
Narender went to the spot of accident on receiving DD No. 29 A. There they saw that half body truck bearing no. UP 14 4850 was standing in an accidental condition. The injured has already been removed to the hospital by the PCR. He received DD No. 67A. He directed Ct. Narender to wait at the spot and himself went to the DDU hospital. There he collected the MLC No. 1278. He came back at the spot and prepared rukka Ex.PW10/A and handed it over to Ct. Narender for registration of FIR. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW10/B. He seized the truck vide memo Ex.PW10/C. One Jai Bhagwan met him and told him that he is the eye witness. The witness recorded his statement. IO got the vehicle mechanically inspected and deposited it in the malkhana. On the same day, owner Dilshad came to the police station and produced the accused and told him that he was driving the truck in question. The witness served notice under Section 133 M V Act to the owner and collected his reply which is Ex.PW10/E. The witness identified the original documents seized by him which are Ex.P1 (colly). Thereafter, he was transferred to PS Nangloi and further investigation was marked to HC Sahib Rao. During cross examination, PW-10 stated that he had reached at the spot at about 3.10 am. He denied the suggestion that Jai Bhagwan is a planted witness and all the proceedings were conducted at the police station.
State v. Khalid Hussain U/s 279/304A IPC 5/8 FIR No. 111/2000 PS Paschim Vihar
15. Thereafter, the PE was closed. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. No DE was led despite opportunity.
16. I have heard the submissions addressed by the Ld APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
17. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
1. That the accident actually took place.
2. That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
3. That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
18. Before proceeding further, let us discuss the meaning of the expressions "rash"
and "negligent". These words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Black's Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
19. In "State of H.P. v. Piar Chand", Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2003, decided on 2.6.2003, Himachal Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the meaning of the expression " rashness " and " negligence " held as follows :
State v. Khalid Hussain U/s 279/304A IPC 6/8 FIR No. 111/2000 PS Paschim Vihar "18. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injury and without knowledge that injury would probably be caused. Therefore, to incur criminal liability, the act must be done with rashness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise reasonable care and proper precaution imperative to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a individual."
20. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1972 SC 685 as under :
"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 circumstance out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted............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".
State v. Khalid Hussain U/s 279/304A IPC 7/8 FIR No. 111/2000 PS Paschim Vihar
21. In the case at hand, the only eye witness i.e PW-9 has denied the entire prosecution story. He could not identify the accused in the court. He even refused to identify the offending vehicle stating that he had not even seen the accident in question. Since the complainant has turned hostile and denied the entire prosecution story, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle bearing no. UP 14 4850 on the relevant date, time and place. It has failed to prove that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner and had hit the deceased with the above said truck.
22. In view of the above discussion, the court is of the considered opinion that the charge against the accused has not been proved. Accordingly, the guilt of the accused has not been proved and thus he is entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly, accused Khalid Hussain is acquitted under Section 279/304A IPC.
23. As per Section 437 A Cr.P.C, the accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON
09th January 2015
(SAUMYA CHAUHAN)
MM-07(West)/THC/09.01.2015
State v. Khalid Hussain U/s 279/304A IPC 8/8
FIR No. 111/2000 PS Paschim Vihar