Delhi District Court
State vs Jarif @ Anil Sharma on 20 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -05 SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT,
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
Digitally
signed by
RISHABH
RISHABH
State Vs. : Jarif @ Anil Sharma
KAPOOR
KAPOOR Date:
2026.01.20
14:13:49
+0630
FIR No : 458/2019
U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196
MV Act
P.S. : Vikas Puri
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Case No. : 1558/2020
2. Date of commission of offence : 15.11.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 26.02.2020
4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused
persons : 1 Jarif @ Anil Sharma
s/o Sh. Jamil Ahmad
2. Kamal Pathak s/o Sh.
Naveen Chand Pathak
6. Offense complained or n proved : U/s 279/304A IPC
and 5/180, 146/196
MV Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 12.01.2026 9. Final order : Acquitted 10. Date of final order : 20.01.2026
1. The accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma is facing trial for State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 1 offences u/s 279/304A IPC and accused Kamal Pathak is facing trial for offences u/s 5/180, 146/196 MV Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 15.11.2019 at around 6:30 AM on Elevated Road, from Janak Puri District Center to Peeragarhi opposite Raju House within the jurisdiction of PS Vikas Puri, Delhi, when complainant Phool Singh along with his brother Diwan Singh were going to Rohini Sector-24 on Tempo no. DL-1L-5625, then the alleged offending Wagon R car no. UP-14-ET-8269 driven by accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma, came from behind at a high speed and in rash or negligent manner. The aforesaid car was rammed by accused in the tempo in which the victim Diwan Singh and his brother/complainant Phool Singh were traveling due to which the said tempo turtled down and the victim Diwan Singh came beneath the same, while the complainant also fell down and suffered injuries. The complainant and victim were rushed to hospital by some public persons and thereafter, the matter was reported to police. The brother of complainant i.e victim Diwan Singh unfortunately succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The criminal law was set into motion after recording the statement of complainant Phool Singh and the investigation into the case began.
2. During the course of investigation, post-mortem of deceased was conducted and his dead body was handed over to his relatives. The owner of the alleged offending vehicle i.e Anup Kumar was made to join the investigation, who disclosed that the car was registered in the name of accused Kamal Pathak. The State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 2 afore-named Anup Kumar also disclosed of having brought the car from accused Kamal Pathak vide an agreement dated 27.01.2017 and that as on the date of incident, the car was being driven by his driver i.e. accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma. The accused Jarif @Anil Sharma was made to join the investigation and the application for conducting his judicial TIP was also filed before the concerned Court. The accused however refused to participate in the judicial TIP proceedings due to which the said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2019. The alleged offending and victim's vehicle were seized during investigation and mechanical inspection of the same were also conducted. The registered owner of the car i.e. accused Kamal Pathak was also made to join the investigation and it also transpired that accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma was not having the driving license as on the date of incident due to which the offences u/s 3/181 and 5/180 MV Act were added in the case FIR. The accused Kamal Pathak also could not produce any valid insurance policy of the vehicle due to the offence u/s 146/196 MV Act was also added in the case FIR. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet for offences u/s 279/304AIPC and Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act was submitted for trial of accused persons.
3. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and on the basis of material available on record, notice of accusation for offences u/s 279/304A IPC was framed and served upon accused Jarif @Anil Sharma and for offences State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 3 u/s 5/180, 146/196 MV Act was framed and served upon accused Kamal Pathak. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined six witnesses in all.
5. Thereafter, the statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused. The accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma also opted to lead evidence in his defense and has examined himself as the only defense witness.
6. Ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the accused persons deserve to be convicted for the alleged offences.
7. Per contra, Ld. Defense counsel has contended that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged incident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle by the accuse Jarif @ Anil Sharma. It has also been contended that the prosecution has failed to establish that identity of accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma as the driver of alleged offending vehicle. It has also been contended that the accused Kamal Pathak was not the owner of the vehicle in question as on the date of incident as same was sold by him to one Anup Kumar vide and agreement dated 27.01.2017, due to which he was not State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 4 responsible to oversee the supervision and use of vehicle. It has been contended that there exist serious doubts in the prosecution story and hence, accused persons are liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences.
8. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prosecution and defense and have also gone through the case record carefully.
9. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses.
(i) PW-1 Sh. Phool Singh was the complainant in the present case. He deposed that on 15.11.2019, he along with his brother Diwan Singh was going to Rohini Sector-24 for delivering the scrap taken from Matiyala in Tempo no. DL-1LL-5625 and the said Tempo was being driven by his brother Diwan Singh, while he was sitting beside him. He further deposed that at Vikas Puri flyover at around 6:00-6:15 AM, while they were at normal speed, a vehicle which came at high speed from behind, hit their tempo due to which the said tempo overturned and his brother came beneath the same. He further deposed that he got up and saw that the car which rammed against their tempo was Wagon R Car bearing no. UP-
14-ET-8269 and the driver of the same also ran away after the incident. He further deposed that with the help of some persons he unloaded the scrap from the tempo and took out his injured State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 5 brother. He further deposed that he with some public persons took his brother to Sehgal Nursing home and his brother unfortunately died at the hospital. He further deposed that the cause of incident was the over speed of the offending car due to which the driver could not apply the brake at the proper time. He further deposed that he also made police call at 100 number and after arrival of police, his statement Ex. PW 1/A was recorded. He identified the alleged accidental tempo in photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P4. He also identified the photographs of the alleged offending vehicle no. UP-14-ET- 8269 Ex. PW 1/P1 and Ex. PW 1/P3. During his cross examination, he stated that the tempo was driven by his brother while he was sitting on his left side. He stated that the tempo was loaded with the raw material of crockery which was weighing 800-900 kg. He stated that the offending vehicle rammed into the middle of the tempo. He stated that his medical examination could not be conducted due to superficial injuries. He stated that he had not informed about the description of the accused to the IO. He stated that the raw material at the spot was shown by him to the IO but he could not state whether the same was shown by the IO in site plan or not. He stated that he had seen the driver of the offending vehicle in police station after three days. He stated that the accused was not arrested in his presence and that he State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 6 had identified him at the PS. He stated that the arrest memo of accused was signed by him. He stated that the tempo was not passenger vehicle. He could not state whether the incident was seen by any other person or not.
(ii) PW-2 Kamal Pathak is one of the accused and also the witness who was examined by the prosecution with respect to the ownership of the alleged offending vehicle no. UP-14ET-8269. He deposed that on 27.01.2017, he had sold the aforesaid vehicle to Anup Verma vide an agreement Ex. PW 2/A but the purchaser Anup Verma did not get transfer the ownership of the vehicle in his name. He further deposed that the police officials informed him regarding the incident, to which he disclosed that the vehicle was in the ownership of Anup Verma. He identified the vehicle no. UP-14ET-8269 in photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P3.
(iii) PW-3 HC Mintu Yadav deposed that on 23.11.2019, the owner of vehicle no. UP-14 ET- 8269 produced accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma stating that he was driving the vehicle at the time of incident and thereafter the accused was arrested in his presence and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW 3/A. He further stated that the disclosure statement of accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma Ex. PW 3/B was recorded in his presence. During his cross examination, he stated that at the time of arrest of accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma, State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 7 complainant was also present at the PS.
(iv) PW-4 ASI Lala Ram deposed that on 15.11.2019 in pursuance of information received vide DD no. 5A, he along with SI Mahender Singh went to the spot where on tempo and one Wagon-R car were found lying in accidental condition and in the meantime, SI Mohinder Singh received information from Sehgal Hospital regarding admission of injured to which he went to the said hospital, leaving him behind at the spot. He further deposed that SI Mohinder returned to the spot at about 10:15 AM after recording the statement of complainant and prepared rukka on the basis of which he got registered the present FIR and initiated investigation. He further deposed that both the vehicles were seized by SI Mohinder vide memos Ex. PW 4/A and Ex. PW 4/B respectively. He further deposed that SI Mohinder also seized the driving license of deceased along with insurance policy and other documents of vehicle no. DL-1LL-5625 vide memos Ex. PW 4/C to Ex. PW 4/E respectively. He further deposed that thereafter he went to DDU Hospital with SI Mohinder where the PM of deceased Diwan Singh was conducted. He identified the vehicles in photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P4 and Ex. PW 1/P1 to Ex. PW 1/P3 respectively. He also identified the accused persons in the Court. During his cross examination, he stated that the information of State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 8 incident was received at PS at about 7:45 AM and he and IO reached at the spot at around 8:00 SM and remained there for around 2-2.5 hours. He stated that the complainant or injured were not found at the spot nor the complainant had disclosed about the description of accused. He further stated that the personal search of accused was not conducted in his presence. He stated that no CCTV Cameras were found at the spot.
(v) PW-5 HC Prahlad was the MHCM, who deposed that as per Entry no. 2573 in Register no. 19, the case property i.e. vehicles were deposited in Malkhana by IO/SI Mohinder Singh on 15.11.2019 and the said entry in Malkhana register is Ex. PW5/A.
(vi) PW-6 Retired SI Mohinder Singh was the IO in the present case. He explained about the proceedings of investigation conducted by him in the present case and his testimony is similar to that of PW-4 and hence, same is not being reproduced to avoid repetition. Through him, rukka was Ex. PW6/A, site plan Ex. PW 6/B, dead body identification memos of deceased victim Diwan Singh as Ex. PW 6/C to Ex. PW 6/E respectively and the dead body handing over memos as Ex. PW 6/F, notice u/s 133 MV act given to registered owner Kamal Pathak as Ex. PW 6/H. He also identified both the vehicles in photographs Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 and Ex. PW 1/P1 to Ex. PW 1/P4 respectively. During his State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 9 cross examination, he stated that as per the brother of deceased, he had fallen down from the tempo as he was sitting on the conductor side at the time of incident. He stated that no major scrap material was scattered at the spot and even no blood was present at the spot. He further stated that the description of the accused was not told to him by the complainant. He stated that the accused was unmuffled after his arrest. He denied that he had shown the accused to the complainant due to which the TIP was refused by him.
10. The accused persons have not disputed the factum of registration of FIR, endorsement on rukka, certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act, GD no. 5A dated 15.11.2019, GD no. 7A dated 15.11.2019, PMR and medical documents of victim Diwan Singh and the record of TIP proceedings dated 26.11.2019 vide their statement u/s 294 Cr. PC and pursuant thereto, the formal witness with respect to the above-mentioned documents were dropped from the list of witnesses.
11. As stated earlier, the accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma has also led the evidence in his defense and he has examined himself as the only defense witness. The testimony of accused / DW1 Jarif @ Anil Sharma reads as under;
(i) DW-1 deposed that on 29.09.2019, he saw that
car no. UP-14ET-8269 belonging to Anup
Verma was parked near his rented
accommodation at Sector-3 Vaishali and on 30.09.2019, the aforesaid car was stolen from State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 10 the parking area. He further deposed that he had made search for the car but same could not be found to which he made police call at 100 number and also gave a police complaint Ex. DW 1/2, in pursuance of which the FIR no.
2477/19 dated 16.11.2019 Ex. DW 1/1 was registered at PS Indirapuram Ghaziabad. He further stated that after the investigation in the said case FIR, the final report Ex. DW 1/3 was filed which was accepted by the court vide order Ex. DW 1/4. During his cross examination, he stated that Anup Verma was his friend and on 29.09.2019 he had gone to his home state in Rajasthan. He stated that the vehicle was parked by Anup Verma at the place where it got stolen. He denied that the car was never stolen or that he got registered the FIR no. 2477/19 after the occurrence of incident in question so as to avoid the legal consequences.
12. Having discussed the evidences on record, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the present case. The accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma has been indicted for offences u/s 279/304A IPC and accused Kamal Pathak has been indicted for offences u/s 5/180 and Section 146/196 MV Act. The allegations against accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma are to the extent that on 15.11.2019 at around 6:30 on AM at Elevated road from Janak Puri District Center to Peeragarhi Opposite Raju House Vikas Puri, Delhi accused was driving Wagon-R Car bearing no. UP-14ET-8269 in a high speed and rash or negligent manner and while driving State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 11 the aforesaid vehicle, he rammed the same into vehicle no. DL-1LL-5625 on which victim Diwan Singh was traveling and due to said incident, victim Diwan Singh unfortunately succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Whereas, the allegations against accused Kamal Pathak are to the extent that he being the registered owner of the vehicle no. UP-14ET-8269 knowingly permitted the vehicle to be driven by accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma without holding a valid driving license and also without holding a valid insurance of the vehicle.
13. The position of law with respect to offense u/s 279 IPC is being discussed hereinafter;
It is a settled law that Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person. In the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing about the ingredients of section 279 has observed:-
In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved". Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 12 the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
10. Besides this, it has also been upheld in various decisions that evidence of high speed simpliciter, is not ipso facto proof of rashness or negligence. In the case of Rajiv Netra Panigrahi Vs. State of Orrisa decided on 20.07.1990, Hon'ble Orrisa High Court observed the following:-
"It is no doubt true, as contended on behalf of the petitioner and as supported by authorities, that high speed in driving of a vehicle does not by itself amount to rash and negligent driving. If the accused driver was driving the vehicle on the highway and had negotiated the distance safely, it could not have been said that he was driving rashly or negligently because of the high speed."
In the case of Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State decided on 12.11.2018 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:-
State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 13 "17. A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven but not render an opinion on "rash and negligence". High speed by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negligent. Speed alone is not the criterion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan (Supra), also observed that: "The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it more than clear that a mere allegation of high speed would not tantamount to rashness or negligence. In the present case also, I find that apart from the allegation that the truck was being driven at a very high speed there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner acted in a manner which could be regarded as rash or negligent."
14. Further in Abdul Subhan (Supra), the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish 1998 SCC (CRI) 1508 was also discussed in which Hon'ble Supreme Court ob- served:-
"3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held the respondent guilty for offences under Section 337, 338 and 304A IPC after recording a finding that the re- spondent was driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific finding has been recorded either by the trial court or by the first appellate court to the effect that the respondent was driving the truck either negligently or rashly. After holding that the respondent was driving State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 14 the truck at a "high speed", both the courts pressed into aid the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to hold the re- spondent guilty.
4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence"
or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses exam- ined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by "high speed" in the facts and cir- cumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor".
15. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.
16. Whereas in order to hold a person liable for offence u/s 304A IPC, the prosecution is also duty bound to establish that the rash or negligent act done by the accused has led to death State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 15 of the victim. In other words, in order to hold a person liable for offence u/s 304A IPC, it is necessary to establish that the death of the victim was the resultant consequence of the acts of rash or negligence of accused.
17. In the present case, it is note-worthy to point out the fact that in order to establish the guilt of accused for alleged of- fences, prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimony of PW-1 Phool Singh who is cited as alleged witness to the said incident. It has been asserted on behalf of accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and that vehicle in question was not being driven by him at the time of incident. The case of prosecution is that in pursuance of the notice given to the registered owner of vehicle no. UP- 14ET-8269, it's registered owner i.e. accused Kamal Pathak joined the investigation and disclosed that the vehicle was sold by him to one Anup Kumar vide an agreement dated 27.01.2017 and thereafter, the said Anup Kumar disclosed that the vehicle was being driven by accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma at the time of alleged incident. Pertinently, the statement of afore- named Anup Kumar from whom the identity of the accused as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was divulged, does not form part of the case record nor the said person was exam- ined as a prosecution witness to prove the aforesaid facts. It is also pertinent to state herein that as per the versions of PW-1 Phool Singh, after the incident, the accidental tempo toppled upside down and he had seen the registration number of the al- leged offending vehicle and also the face of its driver, who al- legedly ran away after causing the incident. PW-1 has however conceded to the fact that the description of the driver of the ve- hicle was not told by him to the IO. Similar is the version of PW-
State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 16 4 HC Lala Ram and PW-6 IO/Retired SI Mohinder Singh, who have also stated that the description of the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not told to them by PW-1.
18. The alleged incident is stated to have taken place on 15.11.2019 and the accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma was stated to have been arrested in the present case on 23.11.2019. The ar- rest memo of accused Jarif @Anil Sharma Ex. PW 1/D1 and personal search memo of accused Ex. PW 3/A both dated 23.11.2019 are bearing the signatures of the complainant/PW-1 Phool Singh. Even during the course of his deposition, PW-1 has admitted the fact that accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma was ar- rested by police in his presence. The fact that the registered owner of vehicle no. UP-14ET-8269 i.e. accused Kamal Pathak (examined as PW-2) has only narrated that the vehicle was sold by him to one Anup Kumar on 27.01.2017 and he has nowhere stated that the vehicle was given by him to accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma or that as per his knowledge, accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma was driving the same, thus it was incumbent on the part of prosecution to establish as to how the IO had gathered that the vehicle was being driven by accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma or in other words as to how he transpired about the complicity of the aforenamed accused in the alleged offense. However, the testimony of IO (PW-6) is completely silent re- garding the aforesaid aspects, thus the said facts have re- mained unestablished due to which serious doubts seems to have been arisen on the story of prosecution.
19. Further, it has been asserted on behalf of prosecution that the accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma had refused to subject himself to undergo the judicial TIP proceedings and thus an adverse in- ference is liable to be drawn against him that he was the driver State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 17 of the alleged offending vehicle at the time of incident. In this re- gard it is pertinent to state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in matter of Rajesh @ Sarkari & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2019 decided on 03.11.2020 ob- served that the Court of fact may, in the context and circum- stances of each case, determine whether and adverse infer- ence should be drawn against the accused for refusing to par- ticipate in a TIP. The finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of the accused to undergo a identification parade. The purpose of conducting a TIP is that persons who claim to have seen the offender at the time of occurrence identify them from amongst the other individuals without tutoring or aid from any source. An identification parade, in other words, test the memory of the witnesses, in order for the prosecution to deter- mine whether any or all of them can be cited as eye witness to the crime.
20. There is no specific provision either in Cr.P.C. or the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which lends statutory authority to an identification parade. Identification parades belong to the stage of investigation of crime and there is no provision which compels the investigating agency to hold or confers a right on the accused to claim a TIP. Identification parades are governed in that context by the provision of section 162 of Cr.P.C. A TIP should be ordinarily conducted soon after the arrest of the accused, so as to preclude a possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before it is held. The identification of accused in Court constitutes a substantive evidence. Facts which establish the identity of accused persons are treated to be relevant u/s 9 of the Evidence Act.
21. A TIP may lend corroboration to the identification of the State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 18 witness in Court, if so required. As a rule of prudence, the Court would generally speaking, look for corroboration of the witness' identification of the accused in Court, in the firm of earlier identification proceedings. The rule of prudence is subject to exception when the Court considers it safe to rely upon the evidence of a particular witness without such other corroboration. Since, a TIP does not constitute substantive evidence, the failure to hold it does not ipso facto make the evidence of identification inadmissible. The weight that is attached to such identification is a matter to be determined by the Court in the circumstances of that particular case. Identification of accused in a TIP or in court is not essential in every case where guilt is established on the basis of circumstances which lend assurance to the nature and the quality of the evidence. The Court may in the context and circumstances of the case determine whether an adverse inference should be drawn against the accused for refusing to participate in a TIP. However, the Court would look for corroborating material of a substantial nature before it enters a finding in regard to the guilt of the accused. The identification in the course of the TIP is intended to lend assurance to the identity of the accused. The finding of guilt cannot be based purely on the refusal of accused to undergo an identification parade.
22. Undisputedly, the refusal of accused to participate in TIP is liable for an adverse inference unless and until a plausible reason is offered. However, in the present case, it is evident from the testimony of complainant (examined as PW-1) that he had seen the accused on 23.11.2019 i.e. the day when the accused was arrested by the IO in his presence and the said facts have taken place much prior to filing of the application for State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 19 judicial TIP proceedings of accused. Therefore, in such circumstances as the accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma shown to complainant prior to the TIP proceedings, the refusal of accused to participate in the TIP proceedings appears to be plausible and justified and no adverse inference can be drawn against accused for such refusal. In nutshell, the prosecution has failed to lead any cogent, convincing or reliable evidences to establish the identity of accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle at the time of incident, thus it can be safely concluded that for want of any such evidences qua the identity of accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma as the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, the liability for alleged offences cannot be fastened upon him. For the sake of arguments, even if we assume the fact that the vehicle in question was being driven by accused Jarif @ Anil at the time of incident, still on careful perusal of record, it emerges that the necessary ingredients for constituting offences u/s 279/304A IPC have not been established by the prosecution. The perusal of testimony of PW-1 goes on to reveal that during the course of his deposition, he has simply stated that the alleged offending car was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner and at a high speed.
23. Pertinently, PW-1 could not explain the manner in which the aforesaid alleged offending car was being driven by its driver so as to impute a rash or negligent act of driving on his part. PW-1 has failed to explain as to in what manner the vehicle was being driven by its driver so as to constitute any rash or negligent on his part. This witness even could not explain the approximate speed of the vehicle during the time of incident so as to ascertain whether same was actually driven in a rash or negligent manner or not. PW-1 has also conceded to State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 20 the fact that at the time when the incident took place, the victim's tempo was loaded with the scrap material weighing around 800-900 kg. By overall appreciation and analysis of deposition given by PW-1, it can be inferred that this witness has failed to explain the mode and manner in which the accused was driving the vehicle during the relevant time so as to impute any rashness or negligence on his part, also that the possibility of the accident of having been taken place due to the contributory negligence on the part of victim Diwan Singh cannot be completely ruled out. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the testimony of PW-1 is of no avail for establishing the necessary ingredients for holding the accused liable for offence u/s 279 IPC. The testimony of PW-1 also suggests that at the time when the alleged incident took place, several persons were passing from the spot. He has even conceded to the fact that after the incident, he along help of some public persons took out his brother/victim Diwan Singh from the accidental tempo and that said public persons also accompanied him and his brother to the hospital. The said public persons might be the probable eye witnesses to the occurrence but they were never associated with the investigation of the case for the reasons unexplained. It has also come in the testimony of PW-4 and PW-6 that the spot of occurrence is a busy public road from where several vehicles were also passing but no reasonable justification has come from IO examined as PW-6 as to why he did not make any efforts to associate any independent public persons in the investigation of the case. These facts also cast serious doubts on the impartiality of the investigation of the case and the benefit of the same deserves to be given to the accused. Therefore, the charges levelled against accused Jarif @ Anil State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 21 Sharma appears to be completely unfounded and the accused deserves to be acquitted in the present case.
24. In so far as accused Kamal Pathak is concerned, as the discussion made in the preceding part of this judgment suggests that the prosecution is unsuccessful in establishing the fact that the alleged offending vehicle no. UP-14ET-8269 was being driven by accused Jarif @Anil Sharma at the time of incident or in other words that the aforesaid vehicle was actually the one which caused the incident in question, therefore, without proof of such primary facts by the prosecution, the liability for the offences u/s 5/180 MV Act and Section 146/196 MV Act cannot be fastened upon the accused Kamal Pathak and thus the said accused also deserves to be acquitted for the offences for which he has been charged.
25. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given date, time and place, the accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma was driving the vehicle no. UP-14ET-8269 in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or public safety or others, therefore, accused deserves to be acquitted for offence u/s 279 IPC. The prosecution has also failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that on the given, date, time and place, the accused rammed his vehicle into vehicle no. DL-1LL-5625 on which complainant Phool Singh and victim Diwan Singh were traveling and due the said incident victim Diwan Singh succumbed to the injuries sustained by him therefore, the accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma also deserves to be acquitted for offence u/s 304A IPC. The prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Kamal Pathak being the registered owner State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 22 of of the vehicle no. UP-14ET-8269 knowing permitted the same to be driven by accused Jarif @ Anil Sharma without holding a valid driving license and insurance of the vehicle, therefore, he is also liable to be acquitted for the offences u/s 5/180 and 146/196 MV Act. The accused persons namely, Jarif @ Anil Sharma and Kamal Pathak are accordingly acquitted for offences with which they have been charged.
26 The bail bonds, if any furnished by accused at the time of commencement of trail stands canceled. Surety, if any stands discharged. Documents, if any shall be returned to its rightful owner as per rules. Endorsement, if any stands canceled. Case property if any, shall be disposed off after expiration of period to assail this judgment and in case of appeal, as per the directions of Ld. Appellate Court. Case file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 20.01.2026.
(Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC- 05 South West District Dwarka Courts, Delhi State Vs. Jarif @ Anil Sharma FIR No: 458/2019 U/s : 279/304A IPC Section 3/181, 5/180, 146/196 MV Act P.S. Vikas Puri 23