Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikas, Ps Moti Nagar 1/8 on 20 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Vikas
FIR No. 219/2009
PS Moti Nagar
U/s 279/304-A IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 108/2/11
Unique case ID No. : 02401R0103432011
Date of Institution : 04.03.2011
Date of Commission of Offence : 21.09.2009
Name of the complainant : HC Rajesh
Name & address of the accused : Vikas
S/o Sh. Ramesh Chandok
R/o F-52, Moti Nagar, Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 279/304-A IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 20.06.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 20.06.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/304-A IPC.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 21.09.2009 at about 01:30 PM at B-35 near Dayal Confectionery, Moti Nagar, Delhi, accused Vikas was driving a scooter FIR No. 219/2009 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Vikas, PS Moti Nagar 1/8 bearing registration no. DL-4SBE-4753. The accused was driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and while driving the said vehicle in above stated manner he hit against a lady namely Neelam Gulati, due to the impact she fallen down on the road thereafter, she was taken to the hospital in cycle rickshaw by the accused and other persons. Due to the injuries sustained by her she died in the hospital.
FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 219/2009 under section 279/304-A IPC was lodged at Police Station Moti Nagar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/304-A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 18 witnesses of which PW Rohit Mehra and Bittoo are the eye witnesses of the accident. Remaining witnesses are either police witnesses or formal witnesses. As PW Sachin Goel was attendant at the Acharaya Bhikshu Hospital, PW Suresh Sharma reached the spot only after the accident when a few persons were taking the victim to the hospital in rickshaw. PW Naveen Gulati and Sanjay Gulati are witness of dead body identification. Other witnesses are police witnesses, doctors FIR No. 219/2009 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Vikas, PS Moti Nagar 2/8 and superdar. Thus, the only relevant witnesses to prove the manner of accident, rashness and negligence on the part of the accused and identity of the accused as driver of the offending vehicle are Rohit Mehra and Bittoo.
7. Prosecution has examined only three witnesses i.e (1) Sh. Sachin Kumar, (2) Sh. Rohit Mehra and (3) Sh. Bittoo.
8. PW-1 Sh. Sachin Kumar stated that on 21.09.2009 he was posted in casualty department at Acharya Bikshu Hospital having duty hours 08:00 AM to 02:00 PM. it is stated that at about 01-01:30 PM, 3-4 public persons came in the casualty alongwith one injured lady. He could not recall if that lady was conscious or not. It is stated by him that those persons were talking among themselves that the lady had met with an accident near Dayal Store, Moti Nagar. He could not tell if the accused was one of those persons who were present in the hospital. Being turned hostile, he was cross-examined by Ld. APP after taking permission from the Court. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that accused present in the Court was also present in the hospital. He further denied the suggestion that accused told him that the accident was caused with his scooter when the injured was de-boarding a cycle rickshaw.
9. PW2 Sh. Rohit Mehra stated that he was working at the shop of shoes and chapal at Moti Nagar as salesman. It is stated that he does not remember the date, month and year, at about 10.30 AM he saw the public persons collected in front of the shop and he saw one scooter was lying at the spot in front of the shop. It is stated by him that he has not seen any accident and he does not know anything further of the case. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP after taking permission from the Court. During cross examination by Ld. APP, this witness FIR No. 219/2009 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Vikas, PS Moti Nagar 3/8 denied the entire case of the prosecution. It is stated by him that he cannot say that the date of incident was 21.09.2009. He denied the suggestion that he stated to the police that on 21.09.2009 at about 01.30 PM he was present at shop no. D-35, Moti Nagar, where he saw one lady was passing in front of his shop and one scooter no. DL-4SBE-4753 came from the back side in rash and negligent manner and hit against the lady. He further denied the suggestion that the lady fell down and sustained injuries and public persons took her to Acharaya Bhikshu Hospital. (confronted with the statement from portion A to A1 of my statement Mark X wherein it is so recorded). He denied the suggestion that he stated to the police that the incident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused. He denied the suggestion that the site plan was prepared by the IO at his instance (confronted with the statement from portion B to B1 of my statement Mark X wherein it is so recorded). He specifically stated that he cannot identify whether the accused present in the court is the same person who was driving the scooter.
10. PW3 Sh. Bittoo stated that he was working at the shop no. B-35 of Kids Shop as partner at Moti Nagar. It is stated that he does not remember the date, month and hear, however, in noon time, he was informed that an accident had taken place. It is stated by him that he has not seen any accident and he does not know anything further of the case. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP after taking permission from the Court. During cross examination by Ld. APP, this witness denied the entire case of the prosecution. It is stated by him that he cannot say that the date of incident was 21.09.2009. He denied the suggestion that he stated to the police that on 21.09.2009 at about 01.30 PM he was present at shop no. B-35, Moti FIR No. 219/2009 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Vikas, PS Moti Nagar 4/8 Nagar, he saw one lady was passing in front of his shop and one scooter no. DL-4SBE-4753 came from the back side in rash and negligent manner and hit against the lady. He further denied the suggestion that the lady fell down and sustained injuries and public persons took her to Acharaya Bhikshu Hospital (confronted with the statement from portion A to A1 of my statement Mark X wherein it is so recorded). He further denied the suggestion that he stated to the police that the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the accused (confronted with the statement Mark Y where it is so recorded). He specifically stated that he cannot identify whether the accused present in the court is the same person who was driving the scooter.
11. It has already observed above that PW2 Sh. Rohit Mehra and PW3 Sh. Bittoo are the only eye witnesses of the accident in the present case, however, they have totally turned hostile and have denied that they had seen the accident. They also failed to identify the accused as the offender. Despite cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, their testimony remained unrebutted, in fact in their cross- examination they specifically denied that they had seen any such accident or the culprit. In their examination in chief it is categorically submitted by PW-2 Rohit Mehra that he saw public persons collected outside his shop, when he went outside he saw one scooter lying outside the shop however, he had not seen the accident. Similarly, PW-3 Bittoo stated that he was informed that an accident had taken place however, he had not seen the accident. As both the eye witnesses have turned hostile and denied the entire prosecution story, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution FIR No. 219/2009 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Vikas, PS Moti Nagar 5/8 can never successfully prove that the accused had caused the accident by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences U/s 279/304-A IPC. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs". reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Hence vide a separate order, PE was closed.
12. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression.
Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal FIR No. 219/2009 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Vikas, PS Moti Nagar 6/8 witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
13. It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
14. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/304-A IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
Final Order
15. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 Indian Penal Code are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. For an offence under Section 304-A, the act of accused must be rash and negligent, which should be responsible for the death which does not amount to culpable homicide.
16. The prosecution in the present case has failed to prove its case. As both the eye witnesses who have allegedly witnessed the accident have turned hostile, hence, it can never be proved that the accident in question was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the accused which is an essential ingredient for FIR No. 219/2009 u/s. 279/304-A IPC State Vs. Vikas, PS Moti Nagar 7/8 offence U/s 279/304-A IPC. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under Sec.258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Vikas qua offences u/s 279/304-A IPC and hereby releases the accused Vikas sections 279/304-A IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal as the material witness i.e. Rohit Mehra and Bittoo have been examined.
17. Accused has already furnished the fresh bail/surety bond in terms of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. in sum of Rs. 10,000/- each. The same has been accepted.
18. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 20.06.2015 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 8 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
FIR No. 219/2009 u/s. 279/304-A IPC
State Vs. Vikas, PS Moti Nagar 8/8