Delhi District Court
State vs . Aditi Goel Pages 1 Of 21 on 29 July, 2022
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-05 : NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS:
DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 147/18 )
CNR No. DLNW01-002169-2018
FIR No. 164/16
Police Station Subhash Place
Charge sheet filed 186/353/333 IPC &
Under Section 184 M V Act
Charges framed 186/353/333 IPC &
Under Section 184 M V Act
State V/s
Aditi Goel W/o Sh. Sarsiz Goel
R/o PP 82, Maurya Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi
Date of institution of case 27.02.2018
Date of arguments 09.03.2022, 01.06.2022 & 29.07.2022
Judgment Pronounced on 29.07.2022
Decision Accused held guilty and convicted u/s
353/333 IPC & 184 M V Act.
JUDGMENT:
Prosecution Case
1. As per the charge-sheet, on 22.02.2016 HC Ram Lal was posted at traffic signal and was on duty at Prem Badi Pul Crossing State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 1 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 2 ::-
alongwith Ct. Chand Singh. At about 07:20 PM, one car No. DL 9 CA U 1289 came from Shalimar Bagh Side and jumped the red light. The car was stopped and it was being driven by the accused. HC Ram Lal fed the car No. in the challan machine and asked the accused to produce her driving license. The accused however drove her car after hitting HC Ram Lal with the car and ran away from the spot towards Pitampura side. HC Ram Lal suffered grievous injuries on his leg. FIR u/s 186/353/333 IPC & 184 M V Act was registered and investigation was carried out.
Charge
2. On completion of investigation, accused was charge-sheeted.
After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charges u/s 186/353/333 IPC & 184 M V Act were framed against the accused on 23.02.2017. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 2 of 21
FIR No. 164/16
-:: 3 ::-
3. The prosecution examined total 13 witnesses and I shall briefly discuss their testimonies.
4. PW 1 is HC Joginder who was working as Duty Officer on 22.02.2016 at PS Subhash Place. PW 1 deposed that on 22.02.2016 at about 7:12 p.m. he received the information from wireless regarding the fact that a vehicle no. DL 9C AU 1289, after causing accident with HC of traffic at Prem Bari Pul Red Light, ran away from the spot. PW 1 further deposed about recording of said information in general diary no. 47 A vide Ex. PW 1/A and giving said information on phone to SI Baljeet. He further deposed about the recording of FIR Ex. PW 1/B by him on receipt of rukka Ex. PW 1/C brought by Ct. Anand and issuance of certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act vide Ex. PW 1/D. He lastly deposed that after registration of FIR, the original rukka and copy of FIR was handed over to Ct. Anand for handing over the same to SI Baljeet. He was duly cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 3 of 21
FIR No. 164/16
-:: 4 ::-
5. PW 2 is Naveen Kumar S/o late Sh. Rashpal who deposed that he is the friend of (HC) Ram Lal. On 22.02.2016, he received a call from Ram Lal and informed about the accident. PW 2 further deposed that upon receiving call, he immediately rushed to the MAX Hospital, Shalimar Bagh, where the PCR officials were already present and he got admitted Ram Lal in the hospital.
6. PW 3 is HC Anand who deposed that on 22.02.2016 on receipt of DD No. 47A, he along with IO went to the spot where they came to know that an incident had taken place with police and injured had been shifted to MAX Hospital, Shalimar Bagh. PW 3 further deposed that they the went to the hospital where injured HC Ram Lal was admitted. IO collected his MLC and recorded the statement of HC Ram Lal. PW 3 further deposed that IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. PW 3 further deposed that they came to know about the number of offending car from the complainant and from the Traffic Control as DL 9C AU 1289. Thereafter they came back to PS and State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 4 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 5 ::-
IO recorded his statement.
7. PW 4 is HC Chand Singh who deposed that on 22.02.2016 he was posted at Traffic Circle, Ashok Vihar with HC Ram Lal and on that day, at about 7:10-7:15 p.m, one silver colour car bearing no. DL 9C AU 1289 jumped the red light of Prembari Pul which was being driven by a lady driver. They tried to stop the car and HC Ram Lal stood in front of the said car and asked the said lady to show her driving license. Instead of showing her license to HC Ram Lal, that lady driver drove her car over the right foot of HC Ram Lal due to which HC Ram Lal sustained injury on his ankle. PW 4 further deposed that lady driver ran away towards Pitampura with the car. Thereafter, HC Ram Lal called at 100 number, PCR van came and HC Ram Lal was taken to the hospital. PW 4 further deposed that he stayed at the spot. At about 7:30 p.m. local police official SI Baljeet Singh came at the spot and at his instance, SI Baljeet prepared site plan. PW-4 identified the accused in the court as the said lady driver.
State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 5 of 21
FIR No. 164/16
-:: 6 ::-
8. PW 5 is Kishalay Datta, HOD, Emergency Medicine, Max Hospital who deposed on behalf of Dr. Rupinder Kahlon that Dr. Rupinder Kahlon was working under his supervision on 22.02.2016 when at about 7:54 p.m., HC Ram Lal Raina came with his friend Naveen Kumar in the hospital with alleged history of hit and run. PW 5 further proved MLC Ex. PW 5/A and deposed that on 02.03.2016 he opined the nature of injuries as grievous.
9. PW 6 is ASI Rakesh Kumar who deposed about recording of DD No. 5 Ex. PW 6/A and DD No. 21 Ex. PW 6/B on 22.02.2016 at about 8:00 p.m. by Ct. Vikram.
10. PW 7 is ASI Arun who deposed that on 27.02.2016 when he was working as MHCM at PS Subhash Place, SI Baljeet Singh deposited one car bearing registration no. DL 9C AU 1289 along with its key in Malkhana. He further proved the deposition of the said car vide entry no. 3000 in register no. 19 Ex. PW 7/A. PW 7 further deposed that on 05.03.2016, the said car was released on State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 6 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 7 ::-
superdari to the owner accused Aditi Goel, as per the order of the court.
11. PW 8/HC Ram Lal is the injured who deposed that on 22.02.2016 he was posted as Traffic Cricle, Ashok Vihar with Ct. Chand. At about 7:20 p.m, one car bearing no. DL 9C AU 1289 jumped the red light of Prembari Pul which was being driven by the accused. They tried to stopped the car and he asked the said lady to show her driving license. Instead of showing her license, the lady started arguing with him. PW 8 further deposed that when he went in front of the car to note down the number and was busy in feeding the number in challan machine, the lady driver accelerated her car, hit him from the front side and fled away towards Pitampura due to which he sustained injury on his right leg. PW 8 further deposed that then he dialed 100 number, PCR arrived and took him to the hospital. PW 8 further deposed that in the hospital, accused Aditi Goel with her mother reached to know about his well being where he came to know her name. He further proved his complaint as Ex. PW 8/A. State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 7 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 8 ::-
12. PW 9 Dr. Anuj Thakral deposed on behalf of Dr. Nafisa Shakir Batta and proved the MRI report of Ram Lal Raina as Ex. PW 9/A prepared by Dr. Nafisa on 27.04.2016.
13. PW 10 Retd. ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar deposed about conducting mechanical inspection of offending vehicle 27.02.2016 by him and proved his report as Ex. PW 10/A stating therein that there was no fresh damage on the vehicle and the vehicle was found fit for road test.
14. PW 11 Retd. SI Baljeet is the IO of the present case, who deposed about the various steps taken by him during investigation of the present case. He further proved preparation of various documents Ex. PW 11/A to Ex. PW 11/E. PW 11 further deposed that since the nature of injury was opined to be grievous, section 332 IPC was replaced with 333 IPC and draft chargesheet was prepared. He further deposed that due to his retirement, he handed over the case file to MHC(R).
State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 8 of 21
FIR No. 164/16
-:: 9 ::-
15. PW 12 is SI Narayan who deposed that on 02.07.2016 further investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. He further deposed about various steps taken by him during investigation of the present case.
16. PW 13 is Sh. Ravinder Kumar, ACP (Retd.) who deposed that on 09.12.2016 he had perused the case file in which HC Ram Lal had sustained injuries and he made a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. to prosecute accused Aditi Goel, who had knowing and intentionally caused obstructions in the discharge of official duty of public servant HC Ram Lal. PW 13 further proved his complaint as Ex. PW 13/A.
17. All the above witnesses were duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused.
18. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
on 06.09.2019 and the entire evidence on record was put to the State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 9 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 10 ::-
accused. The accused denied the evidence and depositions made against her. She claimed to be innocent. She opted to lead defence evidence and she examined Smt. Alka Goel as DW-1.
19. DW-1 deposed that accused is her daughter. Accused purchased her first car in February 2016 and after purchasing the car she visited Gopal Mandir, PP Block Pitampura. She parked her car on the main road and the car was parked in a slightly wrong manner.
When she and the accused came out of the temple, one person was shouting and asking about the owner of the said car. Despite apoligising, the said person continued to shout and abuse the accused and threatened that he had noted down the number of the car. Later on, the accused came to know that the said person was Ram Lal posted in traffic police. She was duly cross-examined on behalf of State.
Arguments & Findings
20. I have heard Ld. APP and Sh. C. Prakash, Ld. Counsel for the accused and perused the record.
State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 10 of 21
FIR No. 164/16
-:: 11 ::-
21. It was firstly argued on behalf of the accused that the prosecution has not proved on record that the complainant/PW-8 HC Ram Lal was posted on duty at the time of incident. No DD entry has been proved to show that PW-8 left for the challan duty at Prem Bari Pul Crossing. It is argued that in absence of proof of being on duty, charge u/s 186/333 & 353 IPC could not be proved by the prosecution.
22. Ld. APP for the State argued that PW-8 HC Ram Lal and PW-4 HC Chand Singh categorically deposed that they were performing the challan duty on the traffic signal of Prem Bari Pul. Their testimony itself is sufficient to prove that they were performing their duties. No question has been put to these witnesses during the cross-examination by the accused to dispute this fact. There is not even a suggestion to these witnesses challenging the fact of them being on duty at the time of incident. PW-4 & 8 further categorically deposed that the accused jumped the traffic signal and was stopped. This was done in discharge of State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 11 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 12 ::-
the duties.
23. I have considered the rival submissions. PW-4 & PW-8 categorically deposed that both of them were on duty at the time of incident. In discharge of their duties, the car being driven by the accused was stopped for violating the traffic signal. During the cross-examination, neither PW-4 nor PW-8 was challenged through a question or a suggestion regarding their duty on the traffic signal at the time of incident. The prosecution has also proved DD No.5 dated 22.02.2016 Ex.PW-6/A regarding the departure of various police officials for their respective point duties including that of PW-8 HC Ram Lal and PW-4 Ct. Chand. The said DD Ex.Pw-6/A was proved by PW-6 ASI Rakesh Kumar and the genuineness and correctness of the said DD has not been disputed during his cross-examination. DD No.21 proved as Ex.PW-6/B also mentions about the hitting of HC Ram Lal by a car while HC Ram Lal was on duty at his point.
24. I am of the view that the prosecution has proved that PW-8 and PW-4 were on duty at the relevant time for issuing challans for State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 12 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 13 ::-
traffic violations.
25. It was next argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the nature of injuries have been mechanically opined as grievous and the charge u/s 333 IPC has not been proved. In this regard, Ld. APP for the State argued that the MLC of injured has been duly proved by PW-5 Dr. Kishalay Dutta. PW-5 further proved his opinion as to the nature of injuries as grievous.
26. I have carefully perused the MLC Ex.PW-5/A. For an injury to be treated as grievous hurt, the hurt must fall in any of the 8 categories specified in section 320 IPC. The same are reproduced as under :-
1. (First) -- Emasculation.
2. (Secondly) --Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
3. (Thirdly) -- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear,
4. (Fourthly) --Privation of any member or joint.
5. (Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
6. (Sixthly) -- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
7. (Seventhly) --Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 13 of 21
FIR No. 164/16
-:: 14 ::-
8. (Eighthly) --Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
27. As per the MLC Ex.PW-5/A, the injuries are described as under:-
1. head- no injury,
2. cervical spine- no injury;
3. chest - B/L AEE;
4. CBS - S,S2l;
5. Perineum - NAD;
6. extremely 1D lacerated wound 2X2 cm over right foot lateral mallcolus tendon expose;
7. aberration injury over right shin 7X1 cm;
8. bruise over right arm 2cm;
28. PW-5 opined the nature of injuries as grievous. He stated in his cross-examination that on 02.03.2016 (the day when opinion was given), he had not examined the patient and gave opinion on the basis of the medical reports.
29. PW-9 Dr. Anuj Thakral proved the report of MRI single ankle of the injured HC Ram Lal as Ex.PW-9/A. According to Ex.PW- 9/A, there was small avelsion fracture at lateral malleolus with State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 14 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 15 ::-
mild joint effusion grade one sprane injury at interior talofibuar ligament.
30. From the report Ex.PW-9/A and the opinion given by PW-5 on the MLC PW-5/A, the prosecution has been able to prove the nature of injuries cause to the injured HC Ram Lal as grievous.
31. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that the mere proving of the nature of injuries as grievous would not suffice to prove the charge u/s 333 IPC unless it is proved that the said hurt was voluntarily caused. It is submitted that the prosecution has not proved that the accused intended to cause grievous hurt or had the knowledge to likely to cause such grievous hurt. Ld. APP for the State refuted the arguments. He argued that from the facts and circumstances, it can be gathered that the accused intended or had the knowledge that she would be causing grievous hurt if she run over her car on the police officials.
32. I have considered the above submissions. To make out a case of State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 15 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 16 ::-
voluntarily causing hurt, it must not only be established that the hurt was grievous but also that the accused either intended or knew herself to be likely to cause a grievous hurt. Intention and knowledge are state of mind and and can be judged from the given facts and circumstances. In the case in hand, accused was stopped by the traffic police officials for a traffic violation of jumping the traffic signal. An argument started and accused refused to give her driving license. PW-8 deposed that he went in front of the car for noting down the number but the accused accelerated her car and hit PW-8 from the front side of the car and fled away. PW-4 HC Chand Singh also confirmed that PW-8 was standing in front of the car and was feeding the car registration No. in the challan machine when the accused drove her car over the right foot of PW-8. From the facts and circumstances proved on record, it can be gathered that the accused had the knowledge that grievous hurt can be caused if someone is hit by a car from the front side. It is accordingly proved that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW8.
State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 16 of 21
FIR No. 164/16
-:: 17 ::-
33. Ld. Defence counsel further argued that the trial is vitiated u/s 186 IPC as the cognizance itself was bad for want of a complaint case to be filed by the public servant. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment dt. 03.01.2012 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sunil Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl Rev P No. 20/2011.
34. Ld. APP for the State argued that section 195(1)(A)(i) CrPC does not contemplate the filing of a complaint case for prosecution under section 186 IPC. It only requires that a complaint in writing is to be made either by the public servant concerned or some other public servant to whom the aggrieved public servant is subordinate. It is submitted that under the criminal law, the information about an offence can be given by any person. The purpose of carving out an exception to the general rule in section 195 CrPC is that in cases of contempt of lawful authority of public servants, the complaint should be made only by the aggrieved public servant or his superior and not by any person of general public. It is argued that the FIR of the present case was State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 17 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 18 ::-
lodged directly on a complaint in writing of HC Ram Lal which is proved as Ex.PW-8/A. The requirement of section 195 CrPC was fulfilled by PW-8/A itself. Not only this, a formal complaint u/s 195 CrPC to prosecute the accused was filed by ACP Ravinder Kumar examined as PW-13 and the said complaint has been proved as Ex.PW-13/A.
35. It is submitted by Ld. APP that section 2(d) of CrPC defines a complaint as allegations made orally or in writing to a Magistrate with the view to his taking action under CrPC but does not include a police report. It is argued that the complaint Ex.PW-
13/A is addressed to the court with a clear request to take cognizance against the accused persons. Not only this, the complainant/PW-13 made a request for exemption from appearance under proviso (a) to section 200 CrPC. It is argued that all the requirements of a complaint have been fulfilled.
36. I have considered the rival submissions. I have also perused the judgment in Sunil Vs. State which has the facts quite similar to State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 18 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 19 ::-
the present case. In para 6 of the said judgment, it was held as under :-
As regards section 186 IPC, it may be noted that though a complaint under Section 195 CrPC was filed however no cognizance thereon has been taken. The cognizance has been taken on chargesheet as is evident from the order dated 7th June, 2010 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. In the absence of a cognizance not being taken on the complaint under Section 195 CrPC, the prosecution for offence under Section 186 IPC is liable to be set aside, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durgacharan Naik (supra) and Pankaj Aggarwal & Ors. vs. State of Delhi & Anr. 2001(3) crimes 361.
37. In the case in hand, the cognizance was taken on 19.05.2017 on the day of filing the charge-sheet. The cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet. Although the complaint Ex.PW-13/A, which was a part of the charge-sheet fulfills the requirement of a complaint under section 2(d) CrPC, there is no specific cognizance on the said complaint Ex.PW-13/A. In view of the ratio laid down in Sunil Vs. State (Supra), the prosecution for offence u/s 186 IPC has to be set aside. Accordingly, no conviction u/s 186 IPC can be recorded and accused is liable to be acquitted u/s 186 IPC.
State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 19 of 21
FIR No. 164/16
-:: 20 ::-
38. The relevant provisions are reproduced herein below:-
a) U/s 333 IPC - whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
b) U/s 353 IPC - Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
c) U/s 184 MV Act - Driving dangerously.--Whoever drives a motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the nature, condition and use of the place where the vehicle is driven and the amount of traffic which actually is at the time or which might reasonably be expected to be in the place, shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence if committed within three years of the commission of a previous similar offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both.
CONCLUSION
39. From the foregoing discussion, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt to HC Ramlal, being a public servant in the discharge of his State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 20 of 21 FIR No. 164/16
-:: 21 ::-
public duty with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his public duties. I accordingly hold the accused guilty u/s 333 IPC. It is further proved by the prosecution that the accused assaulted and used criminal force to deter HC Ram Lal from discharging his public duties with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duties. I accordingly hold the accused guilty u/s 353 IPC. It is also proved that the accused violated the traffic signal. The traffic signal is situated at a very busy crossing and the vehicles cross this signal at a high speed. Violating the traffic signal at such busy crossing is dangerous to the public. I accordingly hold the accused guilty u/s 184 MV Act.
40. The accused is accordingly convicted u/s 353/333 IPC & 184 M V Act.
41. Arguments on sentence shall be heard separately. Announced in the Open Court On : 29.07.2022 (Neeraj Gaur) ASJ05/NorthWest District Rohini Courts/Delhi/29.07.2022 State Vs. Aditi Goel Pages 21 of 21 FIR No. 164/16