Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravi Verma on 20 February, 2016
Page No. -1- of 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUJ AGARWAL:
M.M.03 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET NEW DELHI.
STATE Vs. Ravi Verma
FIR NO. : 420/2011
P.S. : Hauz Khas
U.S. : U/s. 279/338 IPC
J U D G M E N T
a. Sl. No. of the case and : 02406R0063122012 dt. 6.3.2012 date of its institution b. Name of the complainant : Smt. Meera c. Date of commission of offence : 16.12.2011 d. Name of the accused : Ravi Verma S/o Sh. Rajender Kr.Verma R/o H. No. 291, Varun Apartment, Sector62, Noida, Distt.G.B.Nagar, UP.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty g. Date reserved for orders : 20.02.2016 h. Final order : Acquitted. i Date of such order : 20.02.2016. BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In brief the story of prosecution is that on 16.12.2011 at about 9.15AM at Aurobindo Marg, near Iron Bridge, Hauz Khas, accused was driving the two wheeler scooter no. UP16AE3501 in a manner FIR No. 420/11 State Vs Ravi Verma Page No. -2- of 5 so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and second on the aforesaid date, time and place, while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner accused struck against one pedestrian namely Meera and caused grievous injuries to her and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s. 279/338 IPC.
2. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court. Copies were supplied to accused. Thereafter notice u/s. 251 CrPC for offences u/s. 279/338 IPC was served to accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. He further stated that he was driving the aforesaid scooter on the aforesaid date, time and place. However he denied that he was driving the scooter in a rash or negligent manner. He further admitted that he struck against one lady Meera.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined two (02) witnesses.
4. PW1 Smt. Meera deposed that on 16.12.2011, he along with her daughter Sangeeta went to AIIMS for medical treatment, that on that day, at 9.15AM, she was crossing the road and her daughter was at pavement. She further deposed that while crossing the road, in the meanwhile one scooter rider ( present in court, correctly identified) came in rash and negligent manner and hit against her due to which she fell down on the ground. She further deposed that her daughter rushed to her and got her admitted in AIIMS. She further deposed that accused also was with them. She proved her statement Ex.PW1/A and stated the number of offending vehicle as FIR No. 420/11 State Vs Ravi Verma Page No. -3- of 5 UP16AE3501. This witness during her cross examination admitted that there was iron over bridge where accident took place and as she was suffering from heart problem she could not took stairs.
5. PW2 HC Ravinder is IO who proved the proceedings done by him during the investigation. He proved rukka Ex PW2/A, seizure memo of offending scooter Ex PW2/B, seizure of documents of offending scooter Ex PW2/C, arrest memo of accused Ex PW2/D, personal search memo of accused Ex PW2/E, preparation of site plan Ex Pw2/F.
6. Record transpired that during course of trial, accused admitted certain document i.e. FIR Ex AD/1, arrest memo Ex AD/2, personal search memo Ex AD/3, site plan Ex AD/4, seizure memo of scooter Ex AD/5 and mechanical inspector report Ex AD/6 and MLC of injured as Ex A1. vide his separate statement recorded u/s. 294 CrPC.
7. PE was ordered to be closed by the order of this court and statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 CrPC. In his statement he admitted that he was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. He further admitted that he had hit the injured. However, he denied that he was rash or negligent in driving.
8. Accused did not lead any evidence in his favour.
9. I have carefully perused the record and heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. counsel for accused.
10. In the case of B. C. Ramachandra v. State of Karnataka 2007 Cri. L. J. 475, the Court relied upon a number of decisions of the Apex Court and concluded that in criminal proceedings, the burden of proving negligence as an essential ingredient of the offence lies on the FIR No. 420/11 State Vs Ravi Verma Page No. -4- of 5 prosecution. It was also observed that "such ingredient cannot be said to have been proved or made out by resorting to the rule of principle of res ipsa loquitur."
11. In the instant case, for bringing home the verdict of guilt against accused, prosecution was required to prove rashness and negligence on the part of latter as same is sin qua non for an offence U/sec. 279/338 IPC. For proving the said fact, prosecution has relied upon testimony of injured PW1 Meera. Perusal of her testimony however reveals that the allegations of rash and negligent driving have been made by PW1 without describing as to how the accused was rash and negligent. Merely by making a bald statement that accused was rash and negligent, the element of rashness and negligence cannot said to be proved. In "Vinod Kumar Vs. State" Crl. Rev. Petition No. 131/2010 decided on 13th October 2011 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court while acquitting the accused, it was observed "no evidence or any other material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the petitioner was driving the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the petitioner. No photographs of the spot or the bus have been taken. PW10 the alleged eye witness to the incident has also not deposed anything in regard to the accident or manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the petitioner, except making a bald statement that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which does not prove the guilt of the petitioner............"
12. Further it has come during cross examination of PW1 that there was an iron over bridge where the accident took place. However as FIR No. 420/11 State Vs Ravi Verma Page No. -5- of 5 per the witness, she could not take the stairs as she is suffering from heart problem. Therefore, it is clear that witness had opted not to cross the road by the over bridge specifically provided for the purpose due to her medical condition. The accused, in my view could not have anticipated that a pedestrian would not use the over bridge specifically meant for the purpose and instead take the risk of using the road for crossing purpose due to her medical condition. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to accused on this count.
13. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
14. In the instant case, since rashness and negligence on the part of the accused has not been proved, therefore I am of the considered view that the accused deserves to be acquitted for the charges U/s 279/338 IPC leveled against him. Ordered accordingly.
Announced and dictated in (ANUJ AGARWAL)
the open Court on 20.02.2016 MM(03)/South District
Saket / New Delhi
FIR No. 420/11 State Vs Ravi Verma