Delhi District Court
402/10 State vs . Chotey Lal Page 1 Of 7 on 29 June, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. DINESH KUMAR, MM, TRAFFIC04,
SAKET, NEW DELHI.
Challan No. 243020
Vehicle no. DL1VA 2280
Circle KKC
Under Section: 66.1/192 A, 138.3/177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
State .............Complainant
Versus
Chotey Lal
S/o Sh. Swami
R/o A86, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi. ..................Accused
Date of institution of the Challan : 21.12.2010
Date on which order was reserved : 25.06.2011
Date of decision : 29.06.2011
Present : Sh. V. K. Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
402/10 State Vs. Chotey Lal Page 1 of 7
JUDGMENT
a) Serial number of the case : 402/10 b) Date of commission of offence : 20.12.2010
c) Name of the complainant, if any : ASI Ram Singh
d) Name & address of accused : Chotey Lal S/o Sh. Sh. Swami R/o A86, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi.
e) The offence complained off : Section 66.1/192 A, 138.3/177 M. V. Act.
f) The plea of accused : Not pleaded guilty.
g) Final order : Acquitted BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. By this judgment, I will dispose of the case of the prosecution based on CHALLAN NO. 243020. The brief facts stated in the challan are that on 20.12.2010 at about 11.08 A.M. accused Chotey Lal S/o Sh. Swami was plying a vehicle number DL1VA 2280 at Modi Mill Flyover. He was coming from Kalkaji side and going towards Modi Mill side.
402/10 State Vs. Chotey Lal Page 2 of 7
2. While coming from Kalkaji side accused stopped his vehicle withour bus stand and started picking passengers. As per the Challan the accused was driving the vehicle without putting the seat belt on.
3. Thus, it is alleged that the accused had violated the conditions of permit provided for the vehicle, punishable U/s 66.1/192 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the M.V. Act). The challaning officer ASI Ram Singh issued a challan under section 66.1/192 A, 138.3/177 M.V. Act.
4. The accused appeared in the court and was released on bail as the offence was bailable. The notice of accusation was served on the accused u/S 251 of Cr.P.C, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution has examined two witnesses, namely PW1, ASI Ram Singh and PW2, Ct. Naveen. The PW1 ASI Ram Singh also proved the challan on record as Ex. PW1/A. The witnesses were cross examined and the prosecution evidence was closed by order on 26.03.2011.
6. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstances appearing 402/10 State Vs. Chotey Lal Page 3 of 7 in evidence against him. In response the accused stated that he is innocent. However, he denied to lead defence evidence.
7. I have heard the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel. The Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused. The testimony of both the prosecution witnesses suffer from material defects. It is argued that it is duty of prosecution to prove his case. However the prosecution has not been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel has put various arguments in support of his claim.
8. The Ld. counsel has stated that no independent person is made a witness by the Challaning Officer. Only witnesses examined are interested witnesses. In the present case although no independent witness has been joined but as per the settled preposition of law the testimony of official witnesses can not be discarded simply because no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution especially when it is not the case of accused that the official witnesses had prior inimical relations with the accused.
9. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued further that even those passengers who were sitting in the vehicle are not examined as witnesses by the prosecution in this case even though their testimony was very important. Perusal of the examination of both 402/10 State Vs. Chotey Lal Page 4 of 7 the witnesses shows that they have stated in their testimony that no public person were made witness. PW1 ASI Ram Singh has stated that he did not request any public person to be a witness. Although, this reason is not suffice for the omission of not making any public person witness in this case, and it is also correct that at least one of passenger should have been made witness in this case. But, non joining of these passengers and even any other independent witness does not make the testimony of official witnesses wholly unreliable. However, it only put the court on guard to appreciate the facts of case and testimony of witnesses with more caution. It is also a fact that generally it is the tendency of persons not to become a witness as they do not want to spare their time to go for evidence. Therefore, most of the time it becomes very difficult to get any public witness. Therefore, the argument of Ld. Counsel does not provide any reason for not believing the witnesses examined.
10. Both the prosecution witnesses have stated in their testimonies that the accused had stopped the vehicle at a place at near Modi Mill flyover and started picking and dropping passengers without bus stop. PW1 has stated that about 10 passengers were already sitting inside the vehicle and about 5 more passengers boarded the 402/10 State Vs. Chotey Lal Page 5 of 7 vehicle at the spot. He has stated that no passenger deboarded the bus at the spot. PW2 also, in his statement, has stated that the driver was picking passengers without bus stop. He has also stated that 5 passengers boarded the bus and 5 passengers deboarded the bus also. Thus, there is a material contradiction between the testimonies of the two witnesses. Prosecution has not examined any other witness who can corroborate the testimony of the Challaing Officer.
11. Even a single witness is sufficient to prove the case as per the Indian Evidence Act. However, such a witness must be other than the complainant. In the present case, PW2 is a witness other than the complainant, however, he does not support the testimony of the Challaning Officer. The Challaning Officer has stated in his statement that the accused was driving the vehicle without wearing seat belt. However, PW2 has not supported this fact.
12. It is duty of the prosecution to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. The case of the prosecution must stand on its own legs. In the present case, however, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had stopped the vehicle without bus stop. It has also failed to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle without wearing seat belt.
402/10 State Vs. Chotey Lal Page 6 of 7
13. In such circumstances, the prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had violated the conditions provided in the permit of the vehicle or that he had violated the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The benefit of doubt is given to the accused.
14. Hence the accused is acquitted of all the allegations of the prosecution.
Pronounced in the open court, today on 29.06.2011 (Dinesh Kumar) MM-04, Traffic (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi 29.06.2011 402/10 State Vs. Chotey Lal Page 7 of 7