Delhi District Court
State vs . : Devta Deen on 30 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SOUTH EAST)07, SAKET, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 200/12
U/s : 279/304A IPC & 134 r/w 187 of M.V. Act.
PS : Sunlight Colony
State Vs. : Devta Deen
JUDGMENT
a The Sl. No. of the case : 249/3/12
b The date of commission : 30.05.2012
c The date of Institution of the case : 08.10.2012
d The name of complainant : Sayyed Imran
e The name of accused : Devta Deen S/o Sh. Bheje Lal
Vishwakarma R/o B25, Allah
Mohalla, Tehkhand Village and
House No. 254, Village -
Gosaikapura, PS Bhenti, District
Faizabad, UP.
f The offence complained of : 279/304A IPC
and 134 r/w 187 M.V. Act.
g The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
h Arguments heard on : 30.01.2016
i The final order : Acquitted
j The date of judgment : 30.01.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1 The accused has been sent for trial on the allegations that on 30.05.2012
FIR No. 200/12 1 of 6
at about 8:20 PM( hereinafter date and time of incident) at Ashram Flyover on the road from Maharani Bagh towards Noida, New Delhi ( hereinafter spot of incident) within the jurisdiction of PS Sunlight Colony was found driving a vehicle i.e. Mahilndra Champion bearing No. DL1LL0959 ( hereinafter offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicle in said manner struck against one unknown person and caused death of said person not amounting to culpable homicide. It is further the case against the accused that he on the aforesaid date, time and place while driving the aforesaid vehicle in said manner has omitted to take a reasonable steps to secure the medical attention to the injured and tried to flee from the spot and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 279/304A IPC and 134 r/e 187 M.V. Act. Investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed in the court on 08.10.2012. 2 Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for commission of offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC 134 r/e 187 M.V. Act was served upon the accused on 23.03.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 To prove its case prosecution examined 7 witnesses in support of its case.
PW1 is Sayyed Imran, who being the complainant in the present case has deposed that on 30.05.2012 he was going to his residence alongwith his friend Shamshad on his motorcycle and while they were going towards Maharani Bagh from Lajpat Nagar and reached at Ashram Flyover, saw that one person while crossing the road standing on the divider of the road and suddenly backed and struck against a Mahindra Champion, green coloured whose last digit was might be 0959. He asked the driver of offending vehicle to stop the vehicle but he did not do so and later on with the help of public person he was apprehended and handed over to the police. Thereafter, he alongwith the police also went to the FIR No. 200/12 2 of 6 hospital where he saw the injured who was found possessing some alcoholic capsule in the pocket, sustained head injury and blood was oozing out from his nose. He came to know that said injured was in drunken condition at the time of accident. Police recorded his statement vide Ex. PW1/A. He identified the accused as the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and also identified the three photographs of the offending vehicle . Thereafter the PW1 was cross examined by Ld. APP as he resiled from his earlier statement wherein he failed to support the case of the prosecution about the manner in which the accident in question was occurred. However, in said examination, he admitted the seizure memo of offending vehicle vide Ex. PW1/B, seizure of D/L of accused vide Ex. PW1/C and arrest of accused vide memo Ex. PW1/D. PW2 is another eyewitness of the incident namely Shamshad Ali, who in his testimony has narrated that on 30.05.2012 he alongwith his friend Syed Imran were going to their house and while they were going on the Ashram Chowk Flyover, ahead of them one TSR was also driven by accused, whom he correctly identified. Thereafter he heard sound and he noticed that one person had fallen down. After the accident his friend Imran had caught hold the accused by chasing the TSR of the accused. After sometime police came there and his friend handed over the accused to the police. The injured person was found in intoxicated condition. His friend i.e. PW1 has given statement to the police and he had also signed some documents. Thereafter the witness was also cross examined by Ld. APP as he has failed to support the case of the prosecution and in said examination he has denied the suggestion given by Ld. APP that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the vehicle he hit one person. However, the witness has admitted the documents upon which his signatures were obtained by police.
FIR No. 200/12 3 of 6 PW3 is Ct. Vikran Saroha, who being deputed with the IO of the case during the course of investigation has proved the investigation done by IO in this case and exhibited the documents prepared during the course of investigation.
PW4 is Dr. D.P. Singh, who being the doctor has proved the MLC bearing No. 484/12 of unknown patient prepared by him vide Ex. PW4/A. PW5 is SI Pramod Kumar, who being the Duty Officer posted at P.S. K.M. Pur on the date of the accident has proved registration of DD No. 18A vide Ex. PW5/A, DD No. 20A vide Ex. PW5/B, his endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW5/C and registration of FIR in the present case vide Ex. PW5/D. PW6 Ct. Hardesh Kumar, who being deputed alongwith IO has deposed about postmortem done by IO on the dead body of the deceased and later one shifting the same to Cremation Centre , Sarai Kale Khan.
PW7 is ASI Jawahar Lal, who being the IO of the case has proved the investigation done by him in the present case and has exhibited the documents as stated above during the course of investigation. Apart from the abovesaid PW7 has also deposed about the preparation of rukka Ex. PW7/A, preparation of site plan vide Ex. PW7/B and seizure of documents of vehicle vide Ex. PW7/C. It is pertinent to note that the accused vide separate admission statement u/s 294 Cr.PC dated 26.05.2014 has admitted MLC relied by the prosecution of the deceased as Ex. PA1 and the postmortem report as Ex. PA2. 4 Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein accused has denied all the allegation made against him and deposed the he has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused failed to lead evidence in his defence. 5 I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel as well as gone through case file very carefully.
6 The argument of Ld. APP is that there is enough material on evidence to FIR No. 200/12 4 of 6 prove the case against the accused. 7 Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that the accused is
being wrongly associated with the offence in question and as such the accused is entitled to acquittal in the present case.
8 I have perused the case file very carefully and have duly considered the respective arguments.
9 Now I proceed to give the reasons for the judgment which are as follows:
The allegations against the accused have already been mentioned above. PW1 and PW2 are the only alleged eyewitnesses in the case. PW1 was driving the motorcycle and going for work and PW2 was pillion rider. PW1 has deposed that he saw that the offending vehicle was going in front of his motorcycle and the deceased had crossed the road and standing on the divider. Then suddenly he turned back from the divider and came on the road and at that moment he was hit by the offending vehicle. PW2 has turned hostile and has denied watching the accident being pillion rider and only states that he heard the sound of accident. Hence, testimony of PW2 is of no use to the prosecution. Regarding PW1, even he has not alleged that the offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner or in what manner the driving was rash or negligent. In fact from his testimony it appears that the deceased might be at fault in the commission of the accident because it has been deposed that he was on the divider and suddenly he came on the road due to which the driver of the offending vehicle might have been caught by surprise and might have been unable to control the vehicle from committing the accident. Also there is nothing in the investigation of the IO from which the rash or negligent driving of the accused might be made out. Hence, the allegations against the accused u/s 279 IPC as well as 304A IPC are not proved. As no credence could be given to these FIR No. 200/12 5 of 6 allegations, it will not be safe to rely upon the testimony of said witnesses that the accused tried to flee from the spot and hence the accused cannot be convicted for the allegation u/s 134 r/w 187 M.V. Act.
10 Hence, in view of the cumulative effect, the accused stands acquitted to the allegation leveled against him. His bail bond cancelled and his surety is also discharged. File be consigned to record room after due compliance of section 437 A Cr.P.C.
Announced in the open (Ashok Kumar)
Court on 30.01.2016 MM(South East)07,
Saket, New Delhi.
FIR No. 200/12 6 of 6