Delhi District Court
State vs Vikas on 16 May, 2025
IN The COURT OF SH. KARANBIR SINGH, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. Vikas & Ors.
FIR NO. 112/2019
U/S 279 / 304A/338 IPC, 3/181, 5/180 MV Act. IPC
POLICE STATION TIMAR PUR
Date of institution of the case : 11.08.2020.
Date of judgment reserved : 25.03.2025.
CNR : DLCT02-008691-2020
Cr. Case No. : 4026/2020
Date of commission of offence : 07.07.2019.
Name of the complainant : SHARAFAT
Name of accused and address : 1) Vikas S/o Sh. Abhibaran Singh, R/o
H.No. 12, Gali NO. 1B, SBS Colony,
West Krawal Nagar, Delhi.
2) Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Sovaran Singh
R/o 83, Radha Nagar, Buland Seher, UP.
Offence complained of : Section 279 / 304A/338 IPC, 3/181,
5/180 MV Act.
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment : 16.05.2025.
Final order : Both accused persons are convicted.
JUDGMENT
CASE OF The PROSECUTION :
1. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 07.07.2019, at about 10:25 p.m. at Y-Point Signature Bridge, accused was driving a Swift car without number plate in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 1 / 19 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:25:09 +0530 of others and while driving his car rashly and negligently, he hit his car against a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL5SBK4852 as a result of which pillion rider of the motorcycle namely Smt. Shabnam received grievous injuries and motorcycle rider Sharafat succumbed to injuries and lost his life. It is also the case of prosecution that the accused Vikas was driving his car without any valid driving license. Further, it is the case of prosecution that the accused Sunil Kumar being the owner of aforesaid Swift car permitted unauthorized person i.e. accused Vikas and hence, he has committed an offence u/s 5/180 of MV Act.
COURT PROCEEDINGS :
2. Investigation was completed and police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was filed for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC /338 IPC, 3/181, 5/180 MV Act. Cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned.
Provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused persons.
NOTICE U/S 251 CR.P.C. :
3. After hearing arguments on point of service of notice, notice for the offence under Section 279/304-A IPC /338 IPC, 3/181, MV Act was served upon the accused Vikas which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C.
was served to accused Sunil u/s 5/180 MV Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF The PROSECUTION :
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses.
5. PW-1: ASI/Tech Gurdeep Singh has deposed that he is a qualified grade-
KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 2 / 19 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:25:16 +0530 I mechanic and he had done specialized courses/training from ITI and worked in various vehicle manufacturing companies. He had experience about 40 years in that field. On 13.07.2019, he mechanically inspected Maruti Swift Dzire tour car white colour bearing registration number UP-13-BT-4938. After conducting the mechanical inspection, he prepared his detailed report in this regard, the same was Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. During mechanical inspection vehicle was off road. On the same day, he also mechanically inspected motorcycle make Discover bearing registration no. DL-5S-BK-4852. After conducting the mechanical inspection, he prepared his detailed report in this regard, the same was Ex. PW1/B. It bears his signature at point 'A'. During mechanical inspection, vehicle was off road.
6. PW-2: Mohd. Ayub has deposed that on 07.07.2019, his brother-in-law namely Sharafat and his sister met with an accident at signature bridge. Thereafter, they were admitted in the hospital. He identified the dead-body of the deceased vide identification memo Ex. PW2/A.
7. PW-3: Ct. Shankar Lal Mandia has deposed that on 30.07.2019, he was posted as constable at PS Timar Pur. On that day, he along with IO went to the MAMC mortuary in LNJP hospital. IO prepared documents pertaining to the post- mortem of the deceased. The said document was produced before the concerned doctor. The relatives of the deceased identified the dead body. Thereafter, post- mortem was conducted and the dead body was handed over to the relatives. Thereafter, he along with IO returned to the PS where his statement was recorded by the IO.
8. PW-4: HC Adesh had brought the summoned record i.e. register no.19 of year 2019. As per record, on 08.07.2019, ASI Om Prakash in the present case deposited the case property i.e., Swift Dzire tour car bearing engine no. 2373407 and motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-5S-BK-4852. He also brought the record of the entry regarding the same that was made in the register no.19 at S. No. 2898.
KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 3 / 19 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:25:20 +0530 Photocopy of the extract of entry no. 2898 of register no.19 was Ex. PW4/A(OSR).
9. PW-5: Dr. Vikas Arora has deposed that he had worked in the Maulana Azad Medical College from the year 2018 to 2021 and then he was working in RML Hospital since one year (2022). On 30.07.2019, he was posted as Jr. Resident at the Maulana Azad Medical College. On that day, he conducted the Post Mortem of deceased Sharafat S/o Shaukat Ali and prepared the Post Mortem examination of the said deceased on the same day. The Post Mortem report no. 524/2019 and opinion in this regard was Ex. Pw5/A (Colly) running into 5 pages.
10. PW-6: Anil Kumar has deposed that he was working as a record clerk since 2000 in STC. He had been appointed by the MRO, STC to inform the court regarding the MLC Nos. 8502/19 & 8501/19. He came along with the relevant record, the MLC nos. 8502/19 & 8501/19 of injured namely Shabnam and Sharafat. The nature of the injury on the MLC no. 8501/19 was given by Dr. Parv Mittal and in which Dr. Parv Mittal mentioned that the injury was grievous in nature. Both the Doctors had left the service from the Hospital. The said MLCs was not prepared by the Dr. Naved though they were prepared by the Dr. Rohit under the supervision of CMO, Dr. Naved. He could identify the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Parv Mittal and Dr. Naved as he had worked with them in his normal course of routine. He correctly identified the signatures on the MLC no. 8501/19 which was Ex. PW6/A bearing signature of Dr. Parv Mittal at Point A and Dr. Naved at Point B. He correctly identified the signatures on the MLC no. 8502/19 which was Ex. PW6/B bearing signature of Dr. Naved at Point A.
11. PW-7 : Shabnam has deposed that on 07.07.2016, she along with her husband was going on the motorcycle to Wazirabad at the residence of relatives and our nephew Md. Ikrar was also coming on the bike behind us then at about 10:25 pm a Swift Car at a very high speed hit our motorcycle near the signature bridge from STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 4 / 19 behind and she and her husband fell down on the road and got seriously injured. She became unconscious and after two days of the incident she came to know about the accident.
12. PW-8: Mohd. Ikrar has deposed that on 07.07.2019, he was on his motorcycle and his uncle (mama) Sharafat and his aunt (mami) Shabnam were on another motorcycle and they were going towards the Wazirabad via Signature Bridge. Then, at the y-point on the Signature Bridge, a swift Dzire car white in colour without number plate came at a very high speed and hit the motorcycle of his uncle from behind. Due to this, his uncle and aunt both fell down on the road at a distance of about 10-15 feet. The driver of the car tried to flee away and the public persons present at the spot helped him to apprehend the driver and help the injured persons. Someone from the public made the call at 100 number. He took his uncle and aunt to the hospital in an auto and he was on his motorcycle. IO Om Prakash came at the hospital. IO recorded his statement on 08.07.2019. IO along with him went to the spot and took photographs of the spot in his presence and seized the accidental and offending vehicles vide seizure memos Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at point A. The accused was also in drunken condition at the time of accident. The case properties were shifted to the PS by a crane. On 30.07.2019, he again went to the hospital after the death of his uncle and he identified his dead body there vide memo Ex. PW8/C bearing his signature at point A. After PM the dead body was handed over to them vide memo already Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point B.
13. PW-9: Aslam has deposed that on 07.07.2019, he was driving his TSR on the Signature Bridge and going towards Burari. At about 10:25PM, he observed that infront of him one Swift car without number plate was being driven. The driver of the said car hit a motorcycle from behind and the driver of the motorcycle and the pillion rider of the said motorcycle who was a lady along with the motorcycle fell on the KARANBIR STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 5 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:25:24 +0530 road. The driver of the motorcycle got fracture in his leg and he shifted him to the trauma center in his TSR. On 09.07.2019, he went to the PS and police official recorded his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
14. PW-10 HC Ravinder Kumar has deposed that he was an emergency duty along with IO and on receiving DD No. 93A, they reached at the spot where they found one motorcycle DL5SBK4852 and a brand new Swift Car without number plate in accidental and damaged condition. A person named Ikrar also met them at the spot along with the driver of the offending car. Ikrar told them that injured has already been shifted to the hospital. IO left him at the spot along with Ikrar and driver of offending car at the spot and went to the hospital. After some time, he came back at the spot after recording statement of injured persons. On making inquiry from Vikas, he was found under the influence of Alcohol and was taken for medical examination at AAA Hospital. Thereafter, he returned to the spot, prepared Rukka, handed over the same to PW10. He came back to the spot after registration of FIR with original FIR and Tehrir. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan Ex. PW8/D, arrested the accused vide Ex. PW8/G personally searched the accused vide Ex. PW8/H, recorded his disclosure statement as Ex. PW8/I. The owner of the car namely Sunil came at the spot and IO served a notice u/s 133 MV Act upon him. He deposed that IO seized both the vehicles vide PW8/A and PW8/B, seized document vide PW8/E and PW8/F. He deposed that the accused Vikas was released on police bail. He further deposed that IO recorded statements of witnesses, owner of offending car and discharged them. Thereafter, case properties were deposited in Malkhana and he along with IO went to STC Hospital and recorded the statement of Shabnam.
15. PW-11 Sunil Kumar is the registered owner of the offending car and he got the same on superdari vide punchnama Ex. PW11/A.
16. PW-12 : Retd. SI Om Prakash has deposed that on 07.07.2019, he was KARANBIR STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 6 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:25:28 +0530 posted as ASI at PS Timar Pur and he was on emergency duty along with HC Ravinder from 8 pm to 8 am. At about 10:45 pm, he received DD No.93A regarding the accident. Thereafter, he along with HC Ravinder went to the spot i.e. Y-Point, Signature Bridge, MKT on the road coming from the side of Bhajan Pura, where we found one motorcycle bearing no. DL5SBK4852 and a brand new swift car without number plate in accidental and damage condition. A person namely Ikrar also met them at the spot along with driver of offending car. Ikrar told them that the accident of his maternal uncle (mama) namely Sharafat and aunt (mami) namely Shabnam had been caused by driver of the swift car and injured persons had already been shifted to the hospital by the public persons. He left HC Ravinder along with Ikrar and driver of the offending car at the spot and he went to the hospital. He collected the MLC of injured Sarafat and Shabnam and recorded the statement of Sharafat which was ExPW12/A bearing his signature at point A. As the Shabnam was unconscious condition, he did not record the statement. Thereafter, he returned at the spot after recording the statement of the injured Sharafat. IO also made enquiries from Ikrar and driver of the offending car who disclosed his name as Vikas. Vikas was under the influence of alcohol. HC Ravinder took the Vikas for medical examination at AAA Hospital and in the medical examination, smell of alcohol was found in the breath of Vikas. Thereafter, HC Ravinder along with Vikas returned to the spot after medical examination of the accused. He prepared rukka which was ExPW12/B bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to HC Ravinder for registration of FIR and he took the same to PS & got FIR registered & came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR & original rukka & same was handed over to him. Thereafter, he prepared site plan already Ex.PW8/D bearing his signature at point C. He arrested accused Vikas vide arrest memo already Ex.PW8/G bearing his signatures at point C and personally searched him vide memo already Ex.PW8/H bearing his signatures at point C. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Vikas already Ex.PW8/I bearing his signatures at point C. The owner of the offending car namely Sunil came at the spot and he served notice U/s 133 MV Act upon him and he received his reply KARANBIR STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 7 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:25:32 +0530 on the said notice. The said notice cum reply was ExPW12/C bearing his signature at point A. Therafter, he seized the accidental motorcycle and offending car vide memos already Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B, both bearing his signatures at point C respectively. Thereafter, he seized the documents of the offending car and the photocopy of DL of accused Vikas vide memos already Ex.PW8/E and Ex.PW8/F, both bearing his signatures at point C respectively. Thereafter, accused Vikas was released on police bail vide bond ExPW12/D bearing my signature at point A. He recorded statement of witnesses and owner of offending car. Thereafter, he along with HC Ravinder returned to PS and case properties were deposited in the Malkhana. He also along with HC Ravinder went to STC Hospital and recorded the statement of Shabnam. Mechanical inspection of both the vehicles were conducted. The mechanical inspection reports were already ExPW1/A and ExPW1/B. He collected the result of MLC of Shabnam which was found grievious and on 30.07.2019 complainant Sharafat died. He prepared the documents for the postmortem of the deceased and handed over the same to the doctor and the said documents were Ex. P12/E (colly). He got identified the dead-body of deceased from his relatives vide memo PW8/C and PW2/A. The dead body of deceased Sharafat was handed over to the relatives vide Ex. PW2/B and thereafter, Section 304A and Section 338 IPC were added. The documents were verified from the concerned authority and it was found that the accused was allowed to drive only motorcycle without gear. Thereafter, he added Section 3/181 MV Act and Section 5/180 MV Act. Thereafter, he prepared a charge-sheet and filed the same before the court.
ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS :
17. Accused persons, in their joint statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. admitted the genuineness and correctness of FIR No. 112/2019 Ex. AD1, endorsement on rukka from point A to A1 Ex. AD2, certificate u/s 65B IEA Ex. AD3, DD No. 37A dt. 30.07.2019 Ex. AD4, DD No. 93A dt. 07.07.2019, Ex. AD5, DD No. 94A dt. 07.07.2019, Ex. AD6, DD No. 95A dt. 07.07.2019, Ex. AD7, DD No. 96A dt.
KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 8 / 19 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:25:37 +0530 07.07.2019 Ex. AD8, DD No. 107A dt. 07.07.2019, Ex. AD9, DD No. 7A dt. 08.07.2019 Ex. AD10, DD No. 23B dt. 30.07.2019, Ex. AD11, photographs of offending car along with CD Ex. AD12 (colly) in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C, ME No. 2997/2019 qua Dr. Ruby same is Ex. AD13, MLC Death Summary qua Dr. Mohit Aggarwal Ex. AD14, X-Ray report along with the X-Ray sheets qua Dr. Kumar Rakeshh Ex. AD-15 (colly) (5 pages).
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF The ACCUSED :
18. After conclusion of this evidence, the prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the both accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
They denied each and every circumstance appearing against them and submitted that the prosecution witnesses have deposed falsely. Further, accused Sunil did not deny that Vikas was driving the vehicle. Further, accused Sunil submitted that at the time of accident, he was at home. Accused Vikas did not deny that he was driving the vehicle but he submitted that at the time of alleged accident he was driving the vehicle to follow rules and regulations. They did not prefer to lead any evidence in their defence.
19. The respective submissions of Sh. Deepak, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. Vinod Kumar, Ld. Counsel for both accused have been heard. The record has been perused carefully.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS :
20. Allegations against the accused are for offence under Section 279/304- A/338 IPC, 5/180 and 3/181 MV Act.
21. Section 279 IPC provides that "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 KARANBIR STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 9 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:25:49 +0530 likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".
22. Section 304-A IPC provides that "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."
23. Section 338 IPC provides that "Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".
24. Section 3/181 MV Act provides that "No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motorcab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2)The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
181-"Whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of section 3 or section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine [of five thousand rupees], or with both".
25. Section 5/180 of MV Act provides that "No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle".
180- Whoever, being the owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle, causes or permits, any other person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 10 / 19 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:26:04 +0530 may extend to three months, or with fine [of five thousand rupees], or with both.
26. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was under
the obligation to prove the following essential ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 279/338/304-A IPC:
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.
b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place. c. The rash and negligent driving of the accused resulted in the death of the deceased/ injuries to another person.
27. It is no more res integra that the mere fact that an accident had taken place and some person had been injured cannot lead to a conclusion of rash or negligent driving. The fact of rash or negligent driving has to be proved by the prosecution by independent evidence.
28. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to 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. The terminology of criminal negligence has been discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment entitled S.N. Hussain Vs. 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 STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS KARANBIR FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 11 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:25:54 +0530 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."
29. In the matter entitled Niranjan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1997 Cri LJ 336, it has been observed that the main criteria for deciding whether the driving which lead to the accident was rash and negligent is not only speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligations of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifferent to harmful consequences resulting from it. In Mahammed Aynudin Vs. State of A. P., AIR 2000 SC 2511, it has been held:
"Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution for guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of the vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
30. Negligence is a tort as well as a crime and can be used for the purpose of fastening the defendant with the liability under a civil law and at times under the criminal law. To fasten the liability in a criminal law, the degree of the negligence has to be higher than that of negligence to fasten the liability for damages in civil law.
RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED :
31. In the present case, accused Vikas was driving the car. He has been duly identified by eye-witnesses PW7, PW8 and PW9. Further, co-accused Sunil Kumar has also mentioned in his notice u/s 133 MV Act that it was accused Vikas who was driving the vehicle. In fact, the accused Vikas himself did not dispute his identity as KARANBIR STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 12 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:26:11 +0530 the driver of the vehicle. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he submitted that he was driving the said vehicle by following all the rules and regulations. Thus, the identification of accused by the eye-witnesses coupled with his own submission establishes the identity of accused Vikas beyond reasonable doubt.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT IS THE RESULT OF RASH AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED AT A PUBLIC PLACE.
32. PW7 , PW8 and PW9 have deposed that the accused Vikas was driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner. PW8 has also deposed that the accused was driving the vehicle at a very high speed. The rashness and negligence can be further gathered from the photographs Ex. P1 (colly) (1-3) where the damage to the car is clearly visible. The same is corroborated with the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW1/A which shows the damage to the front bumper, bonit, glass and the detail of other damage is also prescribed in the report of mechanical expert which is corroborated by the picture of the vehicle Ex. P1. Further, during cross-examination of PW7, 8 and 9, nothing material has come on record which shakes the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, the testimony of these witnesses also gets corroborated from the statement of PW12 and PW10 who visited the spot after receiving DD No. 93A. The rashness and negligence is also established from the MLC of accused Vikas which has been admitted by him u/s 294 Cr.P.C. as Ex. AD13. It is recorded by the doctor in Ex. AD-13 that there is history of alcohol intake as stated by the accused himself. Thus, the aforesaid MLC also corroborates the circumstances in which the accident has taken place and it further corroborates the story of the prosecution that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused Vikas. The testimony of eye witnesses PW8 and PW9 is trustworthy and the minor contradictions in their testimony do not effect the case of the prosecution.
33. During the final arguments, it was pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the KARANBIR STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 13 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:26:14 +0530 accused that PW2 has deposed that no injury marks were present on the face of deceased. It was further pointed out that PW5 did not conduct post-mortem and that PW7 could not answer as to how many people were present in the offending car at the time of accident. It was further pointed out PW9 has not seen the accident and that PW12 has mentioned the different time of accident. The aforesaid facts do not impeach the credibility of the witnesses and in no way effect the prosecution case. Further, the accused persons have alleged that they have been falsely implicated. However, they have not assigned any motive to PW7 and PW8 as to why they would falsely implicate the accused persons. Thus the aforesaid contradictions pointed out by the defence are not material and the argument that the contradictions effect the prosecution case stands rejected.
34. The law regarding injured witness is by now well settled. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.
"Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". (Vide Ramlagan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 12; Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957; Appabhai & Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696; Bonkya alias Bharat Shivaji Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra , (1995) 6 SCC 447; Mohar & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2002) 7 SCC 606; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270; Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2261; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673).
35. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness KARANBIR STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 14 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:26:19 +0530 should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
36. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
37. In Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras, 1957 AIR 614 the Hon'ble Supreme Court says:
"11. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact". The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence -- 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and 1101, forbidding KARANBIR STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 15 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:26:23 +0530 convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in Section 134 above. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS KARANBIR FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 16 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:26:27 +0530 testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very KARANBIR STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 17 / 19 SINGH Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:26:30 +0530 nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution."
38. Thus in view of the above discussion, the court finds the evidence of injured witness PW7 Shabnam as reliable and the second ingredient of rashness and negligence also stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. C. The rash and negligent driving of the accused resulted in the death of the deceased/ injuries to another person.
39. In the facts and circumstance of the present case, the death of deceased is established from the post-mortem report Ex. PW5/A (colly) which shows that death has resulted due to Sepsis and Haemorrhage in a surgical amputated case of left lower limb following blunt trauma to pelvis and lower limbs. The post-mortem report further states that the injuries are one week old in duration and are produced by blunt force possible in road traffic incidence. The injuries to the deceased as well as to Shabnam are also established from MLC Ex. PW6/B and Ex. AD14 and Ex. PW6/A. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the medical record and the same has been duly proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the third ingredient also stands proved.
40. Based on the above discussion, the court is of the view that prosecution has proved its case against accused Vikas beyond reasonable doubt under Section 279/338/304A IPC and he stands convicted for the same.
41. Now, I shall deal with the offences under Motor Vehicles Act. The KARANBIR SINGH STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 18 / 19 Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH Date: 2025.05.16 17:26:34 +0530 offence u/s 181 MV Act stands proved against accused Vikas as it stands established from record and testimony of PW12 that accused Vikas was only allowed to drive motorcycle without gear. In the cross-examination of PW12, the aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the accused and there is no suggestion to the effect that the inquiry conducted by the IO in this regard was improper. Thus, the aforesaid fact is deemed to be admitted by the accused. Thus, the offence stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. Similarly, the reply to notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex. PW12/C clearly establishes that the accused Sunil allowed accused Vikas to drive the aforesaid car. In the cross-examination of PW12 no suggestion has been given specifically to dispute the said notice and in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused Sunil has submitted that his signatures were taken on several papers by the police. In the absence of any such suggestion in the cross-examination, the testimony of PW12 with respect to Ex. PW12/C is deemed to be admitted as it has not been challenged in the cross- examination. Thus the offence u/s 5/180 MV Act also stands proved against accused Sunil and stands convicted for the same.
42. Based on the above discussions, the court is of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons stand convicted as above.
This judgment consists of 19 pages and each and every page of this judgment is digitally signed by me.
Digitally signed by KARANBIR KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.05.16
17:26:38 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN The OPEN (Karanbir Singh)
COURT ON 16th May, 2025. JMFC-02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/16.05.2025.
STATE VS. VIKAS AND ORS FIR NO. 112/2019 PS TIMAR PUR PAGE NO. 19 / 19