Delhi District Court
State vs . : Sonia Arora on 29 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. KRATIKA CHATURVEDI
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04 (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Sonia Arora
FIR No. : 52/13
U/s : 279/337/338/304-A IPC
P.S. : Dwarka South
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020016102013
2. Date of commission of offence : 25.02.2013
3. Date of institution of the case : 03.09.2013
4. Name of the complainant : Vaishali Bansal
5. Name of accused, parentage &
address : Sonia Arora, W/o Shri
Arun Arora, R/oFlat
No.B-406,Plot NO. 10,
Shital Vihar, CGHS,
Sector 23, Dwarka, New
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : 279/337/338/304-A IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Convicted
9. Date of final order : 29.04.2023
Argued by: - Mr. Manish Sidhawat, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Arpit Batra, Ld. Counsel for accused.
FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 1 of 56
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 25.02.2013 at about 12:40 p.m. near bus stop, JJ Colony, sector-
1, Dwarka, the accused Sonia Arora was driving a santro car beraing no. DL 4CR 3749 rashly and negligently and had hit the complainant, Ms. Vaishali, Sh. VN Bansal, Ms.Poonam Bansal, Smt. Draupadi Bansal and Smt. Meena Bansal and as a result, Sh. VN Bansal had received simple injuries and Smt. Poonam Bansal had received grievous injuries while Smt. Draupadi Bansal and Smt. Meena Bansal had expired due to accident caused by the accused. As such, it is alleged that the accused person has committed the offence punishable under section 279/304- A/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC"), for which FIR no. 52/2013 was registered at the police station Dwarka South, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter, "IO") undertook investigation and on culmination of the same, the chargesheet against the accused person was filed. The Ld. Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused person and accused was admitted to bail on 03.09.2013. On her appearance, a copy of the chargesheet was supplied to the accused in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC").
FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 2 of 56On finding a prima facie case against the accused person, notice under section 279/304-A/337/338 of IPC was framed against the accused on 20.11.2013. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt:-
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 Sh. Ajay Bansal PW-2 HC Paramjeet PW-3 Sh Puran Chand (Retd) Mechanic PW-4 Sh. Gaurav Goyal PW-5 Sh V N Bansal PW-6 Ms. Vaishali PW-7 Sunil Sharma PW-8 Sh. Prashant Kumar PW-9 Smt. Poonam Bansal PW-10 WCt. Anita PW-11 Ct. Satish Kumar PW-12 HC Maha Singh PW-13 Ct. Sanjeev PW-14 Ct. Arun Kumar PW-15 Dr. Nidhi Agarwal PW-16 Dr. D. Bhattacharjee PW-17 Sh. Sanjay Kumar PW-17 (sic) Dr. Nikhil Yadav PW-18 ASI Ram Palli PW-19 SI Satbir Singh PW-20 Dr B N Mishra PW-21 Mr. Krishan Pal Singh DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.PW1/A Handing over memo of the dead body Ex.PW2/A FIR No. 52/13 Ex.PW2/B Endorsement on rukka Ex.PW3/A Mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 3 of 56 Ex.PW4/A & Identification memo of deceased persons Ex.PW4/B Ex.PW6/A Statement of the complainant Ex.PW6/B Arrest memo Ex.PW6/C Personal search memo Ex.PW8/A1 33 photographs of the spot to PW8/A33 Ex.PW10/A Rojnamcha register as DD No. 22 Ex.PW11/A Seizure memo of offending vehicle Ex.PW11/B Seizure memo of articles of victim Ex.PW11/C Seizure memo of the clothes of deceased Ex.PW11/D & Seizure memo of blood gauze piece of Ex.PW11/E deceased Draupadi Bansal & Meena Bansal Ex.PW11/F & Seizure memo of blood gauze piece of injured Ex.PW11/G V.N. Bansal & Poonam Bansal Ex.PW11/H Seizure memo of blood stance from offending vehicle Ex.PW11/I Seizure memo of blood sample from the spot Ex.PW11/J Seizure memo of RC of the offending vehicle Ex.PW11/K Seizure memo of DL of the accused Ex.PW11/L Seizure memo of insurance of the offending vehicle Ex.PW12/A to Copy of relevant pages of register no. 19 Ex.PW12/C (OSR) Ex.PW15/A X-ray report (colly) & Ex.PW15/B Ex.PW15/C & X-ray films Ex.PW15/D Ex.PW16/A MLC of Mrs. Draupadi Bansal Ex.PW16/B Death certificate Ex.PW17/A Post-mortem of Mrs. Draupadi Bansal Ex.PW17/A MLC of Meena Bansal Ex.PW17/B MLC of V.N. Bansal Ex.PW17/C MLC of Poonam Bansal Ex.PW19/A Rukka Ex.PW19/B Site plan Ex.PW19/C & Identification memo of dead body of Ex.19/D Draupadi Bansal Ex.PW19/E Handing over memo of dead body of Meena Bansal FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 4 of 56 Ex.PW19/F Identification memo of dead body of Meena Bansal
4. PW-1, Ajay Bansal, has deposed that on 26.02.2013, he alongwith IO went to the DDU Hospital mortuary where he identified the dead body of Meena Bansal who was his bhabhi. He deposed that after post-mortem, her dead body was handed over to him and his nephew Gaurav. In his cross examination, he stated that he was informed about the death of Smt. Meena Bansal by Vaishali Bansal at about 12.30 PM and he along with his brother Sanjay Bansal went to Bhagat Hospital, Dwarka and that he received the post-mortem on the next date on 27.02.2013 at about 12.00 PM.
5. PW-2 HC Paramjit has stated that on 25.02.2013, he was posted as DO and his duty hours were from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM. At about 3.40 PM, Ct Satish brought one rukka for registration of FIR and thereafter, he registered FIR No. 52/13. Thereafter, he made an endorsement on rukka and handed over the copy of FIR and original complaint to Ct Satish to be handed over to ASI Satbir for investigation. In his cross examination, he has stated that Ct Satish had come alone and none of the public persons or the complainant had come with him to the PS. He made the DD entry on the direction of SHO after which the same was handed over to one lady Ct Pinki to type the FIR. He deposed that rukka reached him at about 3.40 PM and that around 5.00 PM, he received the copy of FIR from lady Ct Pinki and handed over the same to Ct Satish.
6. PW3 Puran Chand, (Retd) Mechanic DTC, has deposed that he is the retired Mechanical Inspector and that on FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 5 of 56 26.02.2013, on the request of IO ASI Satbir Singh he inspected the vehicle Santro car bearing no. DL-4CR3749 and the same was fit for road test. In his cross examination, he stated that on inspection, he found that on the front right side of the Santro car on the bumper and the body, there were fresh scratch marks which was red in colour. He stated that red coloured marks were fresh in nature and the same was not blood. He further stated that the same may have been caused due to hit with another red colour car. In his re-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he stated that at the time of preparation of report, he inadvertently could not mention that the scratch was of red colour and during cross examination, he remembered the same after seeing the report and police file. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he stated that he recollected the said fact only the basis of memory as there was nothing in the police file which made him to recollect that the colour of the scratch was red. He has refuted the suggestion that he has been won over by the defence. He further stated that there are no photographs and other documents regarding the scratch of red colour on record. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he stated that there were red colour scratch marks on the front right side which was about 12 to 13 inches in length. In his re-examination by Ld. APP for the State, he stated that he has not mentioned in his report regarding the length of scratch and that he has stated the size of scratch only on the basis of his memory and there is no documentary evidence in the file on the basis of which the size of scratch can be ascertained.
7. PW-4, Mr. Gaurav Goyal, has deposed that on 25.02.2013, he received an information by phone regarding the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 6 of 56 accident of his maternal grand-mother and his maternal aunt and that they were admitted in Bhagat Chandra Hospital and thereafter, he went to the said hospital where his maternal grand- mother Smt. Draupadi Bansal had expired and at about 4.25 PM, his maternal aunt has also expired. He identified the dead body on 26.02.2013 in morturary at DDU Hospital. After post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to him. In his cross examination, he stated that he got the call at about 1.30 PM from mobile number 9312228080 and at that time he was in office at Noida. He stated that he reached the hospital in Metro alone and when he reached the hospital, his relatives, namely Sanjay Bansal, Ajay Bansal, Rajiv Bansal, Ambika Bansal, Vaishali Bansal were present there. He stated that he was informed by the police officials that one Sonia Arora had hit his relatives i.e., maternal grand-mother and maternal aunt with her car.
8. PW5 V N Bansal, has deposed that on 25.02.2013, he along with his wife Draupadi Bansal, his two daughter-in law namely Meena Bansal and Poonam Bansal and his grand- daughter Vaishali were going to Dadadev Mandir by bus. He deposed that they deboarded the bus at bus stop Sector 1, Dwarka and thereafter, they were proceeding to catch the relevant bus. In the meantime, one car bearing no. DL-4CR-3749 Santro driven by Smt. Sonia Arora in a very fast speed and uncontrollable situation came back from the back side and hit all of them due to which, he and Poonam Bansal fell down on the road and his wife and Meena Bansal fell on the bonnet of the car due to which the said car stopped after some distance. Thereafter, both Meena Bansal and his wife also fell down from the bonnet on the road in a very serious condition. They were brought to the Bhagat FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 7 of 56 Chandra Hospital by some unknown person in their car. He deposed that at that time he was conscious and that he became unconscious when he was told that his wife was declared dead. His daughter in law Meena Bansal also fighted with her life and she died at 4.25 PM on the same day. He received injuries on his head and his daughter in law Poonam also received head and internal injuries. Police recorded his statement. He identified the accused and the identity of the case property is not disputed. In his cross examination, he stated that he along with the abovesaid family members were walking in the south direction towards the red light heading towards Dwarka Court. He does not remember as to which relative was walking on his left, right, front or back. He stated that they were facing towards the south direction towards the red light. Police recorded his statement after 2-3 days after the accident but he does not remember the exact date. He told the police officials whatever they had asked him. The accued had hit them from behind. The witness is confronted with statement u/s 161 Cr PC where he stated that they were hit from the side. He stated that none of them saw the Santro car coming towards him before hitting them and that he had asked the police officials and the accused regarding her name at the spot. He stated that he filed an insurance claim for his neurology treatment from Dr Anshal Gupta, Shri Ganga Ram Hospital and he has also taken treatment of his three fingers, his right leg from one doctor who was working at Max Hospital, Pitampura. His MLC was recorded at Bhagat Chandra Hospital, Mahavir Enclave. He has refuted the suggestion that he was not injured on his right feet and he has not suffered any neurological injuries. He stated that he did not ask the name of persons who FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 8 of 56 had taken him into the hospital and he does not know in which vehicle he and his wife were taken to the hospital. He further stated that it was only he and his wife in a car in which he was taken to the Bhagat Chandra Hospital. He does not know whether the person who had taken him and his wife to the hospital remained there as he was unconscious when he reached at the hospital. He stated that he does not know as to who brought his daughter in law Meena Bansal to the hospital. He again stated that his grand daughter namely Vaishali had come to the hospital along with his daughter in law. He does not remember as to how many persons were gathered at the spot at the time of accident but few persons were gathered there.
9. PW 6 Ms. Vaishali, has deposed that on 25.02.2013, she along with her grand father V N Bansal, her grand mother Draupadi Bansal, her mother Meena Bansal and her aunt Poonam Bansal were going to Dadadev Mandir from their house by a bus. She deposed that at about 12.40 PM, they deboarded the said bus near Sector 1, J J Colony, Bus Stop Dwarka. They were approaching towards the red light and in the meanwhile, a car firstly hit her from the side and thereafter, hit her grand father, her grand mother, her mother and her aunt. She deposed that her grand father and her aunt fell down at a side and her grand mother and her mother was on the bonnet of the said car. She deposed that the a car bearing no. DL-4CR-3749 was in a very fast speed and that the driver of the car was driving the car in a zig zag manner. Many people gathered there and that she took her mother to Bhagat Chandra Hospital with the help of somebody's car and she remained in the hospital. Her statement was recorded by the police as complainant in the hospital and at FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 9 of 56 about 5.00 PM, she was called at the spot where the police arrested the accused and conducted her personal search in her presence. The witness has correctly identified the accused and the identity of the case property is not disputed. In her cross examination, she stated that she and her family members left home to go to Dadadev Mandir at around 11.55 AM-12.00 noon on 25.02.2013. They had boarded the bus from Raghunagar bus stop but she does not remember the bus number. She had not travelled earlier on this route and that it was the first time when she was visiting Dadadev Mandir. She stated that she does not remember the time when they boarded the bus from Raghu Nager. As the temple was located close to Sector 1 bus stop, they had gone there towards the red light. She cannot tell the position of her relatives while they were walking towards the red light. Her face and that of her family members were towards the red light. She does not know whether the car was coming from her front side or back side but it hit her from the side. She has refuted the suggestion that she was not present at the spot. She had herself seen the registration number of the car and that the front mirror of the car was broken and there was a dent on the front portion of the bonnet. She does not remember any damage on the car. She further stated that in the next 5 minutes of the accident, around 20-25 had gathered at the spot of the accident and none of her friends and relatives reached at the spot, however, she called her relatives and friends when she reached the hospital. She deposed that they were 5 in number and were walking on the side of the road and they were not on the footpath. She does not know as to what position her grand father and her aunt fell on the road. She stated that she took her mother FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 10 of 56 Meena Bansal to the hospital in the car of some unknown person and she does not know as to who was taking other injured persons. She stated that she was able to see the blood on the body of her mother but cannot tell at which place of the body her mother had sustained injuries. She further stated that she does not know at which part of the body her relatives had sustained injuries. She deposed that injured relatives had come in auto rickshaw to the hospital but she does not know who had brought them at hospital. She had reached the hospital at around 12.55 to 1.00 PM and her other injured relatives had come to the hospital after 15 minutes of her reaching there. She stated that the police personnel had directly reached the hospital and she does not know as to who had called the police. She stated that she had signed 4-5 documents i.e., her statement, personal search memo, arrest memo and the site plan of the spot and that she does not remember whether she had signed any other documents or not. She stated that she had gone to the spot at about 5.00 PM with her father Sanjay Bansal and that the accused was present there alongwith police officials. She stated that one of her relative had told her about the name of the accused as Sonia Arora.
10. PW 7 Mr. Sunil Sharma, stated that on 25.02.2013 at about 12.30 to 12.45 PM, he was present at the bus stop near Mata Mandir and saw one car in cherry colour coming from the power house side in a very fast and negligent manner and that the driver of the said car was driving in a zig zag manner and that it had hit a Santro car from the right side. Thereafter, the Santro car bearing no. DL-4CR-3749 had hit 3-4 women and one old man as the said car was disbalanced. The Santro car was driven by a woman who has been correctly identified by the witness. He FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 11 of 56 further stated that the driver of the car in cherry colour after hitting Santro car ran away towards Palam. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he stated that the police did not record his statement and that police obtained his signature on the blank paper. He has stated that on 25.02.2013 at about 12.45 PM, when he was smoking, three-four boys in one cherry colour swift car were driving in zig zag manner passed one light green colour car from the right side due to which Madam/accused lost her balance on the said car. Accused was driving in a slow speed and due to the loss of balance on the car, 4-5 persons were walking on the side of the road which got hit by the said car. He stated that the police had not recorded his statement as per his version. He stated that he had not reported the fact that his signature was obtained on the blank paper to any authority. He stated that he had not seen the registration number of the said cherry colour car and that he had not told to the police that one car in a cherry colour was coming from the power house side in a very fast and negligent manner and had hit a Santro car and due to the impact, the driver of the Santro car lost her balance and hit the pedestrians. He has stated that after accident, he never met the accused. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he stated that faces of all the victims was towards the red light and all the victims were walking front and back. He stated that the victims had occupied 5-6 ft. area walking around the road and that the victims were walking on the road in a wrong manner as they could have walked on footpath also. He deposed that three persons were sitting in cherry colour car which had hit the offending Santro car lightly from the right side. He looked towards the said Cherry colour Santro car after the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 12 of 56 accident as they were having very usual loud horn. He had met some police officials at the time of accident which had come on a PCR call. He was called to get recorded his statement by some other police official in the evening.
11. PW-8, Sh. Prashant has deposed that he was running a business of call center at Saraswati Vihar and that on 25.02.2013, at about 12.45-1 PM, he was going from Sector-1 bus stand towards nearby ATM through Mata Rani Mandir. He deposed that suddenly he saw four ladies and one old aged man who were going towards red light sector-1 from bus stand. They were all going on foot from the road side. Thereafter he saw one santro car of sky blue colour bearing no. 3749 was driven by the accused who was coming from power house side towards Sector- 1 red light in a very high speed and in zig zag manner and hit aforesaid all five persons from behind due to which one lady struck and dragged between the pavement and car and another lady fell on the bonnet. He further deposed that about 5 meter away, the said car stopped as there was a speed breaker and the said lady fell down from the bonnet. All persons received severe injuries except the girl. Many people gathered there. Thereafter, accused starting shouting that "mujhe jane do. Mujse galti ho gai". He deposed that the crowd tried to beat her. He intervened and took her into her car and took the keys of the said car. He called on 100 number. Police reached at the spot after about 10 minutes. He handed over the keys of the car to the police. He deposed that the police arrested the accused in his presence. He has correctly identified the accused and the identity of the case property is not disputed and has identified the 33 photographs of the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the location FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 13 of 56 of his residence is nearby Bengali colony. There are almost three ATMs close to his residence. The first one being almost 750 meters on Palam Dabri Road. Second one is at five-minute walking distance i.e., HDFC ATM and third one is at a seven- minute distance from his residence being PNB ATM. Sector 1 and sector 2 bus stand are at a distance of 3 to 5 minutes from his residence. He stated that he cannot produce the site map of the location of his house. On the date of incident, he was going towards the HDFC bank ATM. The ATM is located 25 mtr away from sector 1, Dwarka Police Post. Police post is located exactly on the sector 1 crossing. He cannot say the distance between the spot of the accident and the police post. However, it takes approximately 1 minute to reach the police post from the spot of accident. He has been residing at the present address for the past 6 years. He deposed that police personnel were present in the police post at the time of accident. In 4 to 5 minutes time, police personnel have come from the police post to the spot of the accident. Immediately after the accident, some of the people rushed to the police post for informing about the accident. He stated that before the PCR arrived, some police personnel from police post had come to the spot of the accident. 3 to 4 police personnel had come to the spot from the police post, however he does not remember the names of the 3 to 4 police personnel who had come to the spot. They also met him. He was standing outside the car when the police personnel arrived. He stated that the ATM to which he was proceeding is located towards the Dwarka main flyover heading towards the airport. At the time of accident, he was before sector 1 red light near bus stand. He was walking to go towards ATM and was 5 mtrs behind the spot of FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 14 of 56 accident. He has never suffered from any kind of eye related problem being near sightedness, far sightedness or colour blindness. The vehicle which committed the accident was bearing Delhi registration number. He had told the complete registration number of the vehicle to the police and in his examination in chief before the court. He stated that he has never given evidence in the court in any other case and stated that he has helped the police in atleast 2 to 3 accidental cases. In those cases, nobody has died but only the victims were hospitalized. When the court had asked the witness, "What do you understand by the terms 'helping the police'?.", he stated that it means making arrangements to shifting injured to hospital and informing the police about the accident in discharge of duties as responsible citizen. In the cases, in which he has helped the police does not pertain to Dwarka only. He has stated that he never filed any complaint at PS Dwarka South. He further stated that the flow of traffic on the road in which the accident had happened witnesses heavy traffic during office hours. At the time of accident, average amount of traffic was flowing on the road. The duration of the red light is longer so heavy traffic accumulates in morning and evening hours and there is average traffic in other hours. He stated that the traffic was flowing on the said road at the time of accident. No other vehicle had stopped or slowed down at the time of accident. He cannot say about the particulars of any other vehicles which were passing by at the time of accident. He does not remember the exact time when he had made 100 number call. He had made 100 number call immediately after the accident. He had made 100 number call from 9899252517. It is a post-paid connection. He had handed over the keys of the car to the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 15 of 56 officials of police post and not to PCR officials. He does not know the name and designation of the officer to whom he has handed over the keys of vehicle. He does not remember what the police officials did after he handed over the keys of the car to the police officials. There were about 4 to 5 people who were hit by the offending vehicle. There were around 3 female and 1 old age person. He does not know as to how many people met with the accident. He cannot comment about the position of the victims at the time of accident. He does not know whether the youngest female victim was walking at the extreme right side of other victims. He stated that all the persons who met with an accident were walking on the road and remembered that the two ladies victims who sustained injuries on their head. He does not remember about the injuries of the other victims. Both the ladies injured were more than 45 years of age. The two ladies were bleeding from their head. There was blood on the road and the footpath. The lady who fell on the bonnet was hit on the right side of the thigh. He does not remember as to which position the lady who was dragged towards the pavement was hit on her body. The said lady was bleeding from her head. He does not remember whether the car first hit lady who fell on bonnet or lady who was dragged towards the pavement. He does not know as to which position the male members were hit by the offending car. One male member was hit before the female members were hit. Some victims were walking in front and others were behind. He does not know as to who was walking in front and who was walking behind. He does not know what proceedings police has conducted as he had left from the spot. He had immediately left the spot after the police had arrived. He had not signed any FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 16 of 56 document at the spot. His statements were recorded at the police post sector 1 Dwarka in the night. There were only two police officials present when his statement was recorded. Almost 50 - 60 persons had gathered at the spot of accident. The victims were transported to the hospital in his presence. He does not remember if the victims were transported to the hospital in ambulance. He has not called the ambulance at the time of accident and he has not seen any other person calling the ambulance. He does not remember whether the police or public were helping the injured victims at the spot. He had only signed his statements given to the police at the night of the accident. He had not signed any other document after the date of accident also. He cannot say that what front portion of the car had hit the victims. He had seen the accident from behind the offending vehicle. He has deposed that the vehicle was coming from the back side on the road on which he was walking. Thereafter, the vehicle crossed him and hit the victims. He deposed that the front glass of the vehicle had cracks. After he had left from the spot of the accident, he met police officials for proceedings in the night at Police post sector 1, Dwarka. It was after 8 PM. No other proceedings were conducted in his presence during the day. The victims were transported to the hospital in his presence. At least two victims were transported to the hospital. One female member was transported in the car of some public person and other female member was transported in Auto. He does not know as to how many persons accompanied the victim in the Auto. He does not remember if the police had made any public person who had gathered at the spot as a witness. He did not observe the damages occurred in the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 17 of 56 offending vehicle. The police had not conducted any proceedings in his presence on the day of the accident or on any other day.
12. PW9 Smt. Poonam Bansal, has deposed that on 25.02.2013, she alongwith her father-in-law, Sh. V. N. Bansal, mother-in-law Smt. Draupdi Bansal, sister-in-law (Jaithani) Smt. Meena Bansal and Ms. Vaishali Bansal (bhatiji) were going to Dada Dev Mandir from their house. At about 12.40 PM, they deboarded the bus at Dwarka Sector-1, near JJ colony bus stop and thereafter, they all five family members were going on foot towards red light, Sector-1, Dwarka adjacent to footpath. Suddenly, one Santro car bearing no. DL-4CR-3749 from behind on his right side in a very fast and negligent manner and firstly hit him and thereafter, hit his mother-in-law due to which she and her mother-in-law fell down on the bonnet of the said car. She saw that the accused was driving the vehicle. Thereafter, the said vehicle hit his father-in-law and Jaithani. Thereafter, he became unconscious. When he regained his consciousness, he was in Ganga Ram Hospital. Due to this accident, her mother-in-law and her Jaithani had died and she sustained injury in her head and her father-in-law also sustained injuries. Her statement was recorded by the police when she regained her consciousness. She has correctly identified the accused and the identity of the case property is not disputed. In her cross examination, she stated that she alongwith her father-in-law Sh. V. N. Bansal, mother-in- law Smt. Draupti Bansal, her bhabhi Smt. Meena Bansal, her daughter Vaishali Bansal were walking towards Sector-1 red light, Dwarka and that they had got down from the bus at Sector- 1 Bus stop and were walking towards the red light to go towards Dada Dev mandir. She does not remember her position and the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 18 of 56 positions of her relatives but they were all walking together. They were walking on the road adjacent to foot path. She does not remember as how many feet area they had covered while they were walking on the road. She cannot say if the MACT court has decided that they were in contributory negligence with the accused. She does not know as to who had been hit by car firstly. She also does not know whether she was firstly hit by vehicle or not. She does not remember the fact that the car had hit one of her relatives and drag her at a long distance while the victim on the bonnet. After the vehicle had hit them, there was a big noise. She does not remember if any of her family member had shouted when the vehicle hit them. After the car had hit them, she had seen that her mother-in-law fell down and she also fell down. She does not know if the vehicle had hit her first or her mother- in-law. She does not remember as to at what portion of her body, the car had hit her. She does not remember if the car had hit her from behind. She does not remember as to at what place she had sustained injuries on her body. She had undergone treatment at Ganga Ram Hospital. She does not know about the place where she received maximum injury on her body. After hearing the noise, she had seen the vehicle after turning her face towards the right side. She has deposed that she does not remember whether the driver was driving the car in a zig-zag manner from a distance. She cannot say as to how many persons had gathered at the spot at the time of accident but there were many people gathered there. She does not remember if she had fallen down on the bonnet. She does not know as to who was hit by the said vehicle after hitting her and her mother-in-law. She does not remember the duration she had stayed at the spot after the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 19 of 56 accident. Some public person had helped her to get up. She does not remember where they had taken her thereafter. She does not remember whether she was made to sit in a car or on the footpath but they were helping her. She also does not know whether the said public persons were male or female. She cannot tell as to where her relatives were injured. The police did not record her statement at the spot. She does not know if the police had come to spot.
13. PW10 W/Ct. Anita has deposed that on 25.02.2013, she was posted at PP Sector-1, Dwarka and on that day, at about 1 PM, she received information from the Gama 50 through wireless set regarding accident at Sector-1 red light. She mentioned the same in rojnamcha register as DD no. 22.
14. PW11 Ct. Satish Kumar has deposed that on 25.02.2013, he was posted at PP Sector-1, Dwarka and on that day, he was on emergency duty with IO ASI Satbir Singh. On that day, IO received DD no. 22PP regarding accident at Sector- 1, JJ Colony, Near Bus Stop, Dwarka. Thereafter, he along with IO went to the spot where accused and the offending vehicle was found. In the meanwhile, IO received a call regarding admission of injured at Bhagat Chandra Hospital. Thereafter, IO went to Bhagat Chandra Hospital leaving him behind at the spot. Thereafter, IO reached at the spot and prepared the rukka and handed over to him and sent him to PS for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. Thereafter, Ct. Anita also reached at the spot. The IO arrested the accused Sonia Arora and conducted her personal search through Ct. Anita. IO FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 20 of 56 took into possession the Santro car bearing no. DL-4CR-3749. IO took into possession the articles which were found at the spot i.e., 3 glasses, two ladies hair clips, one pair of ladies sandals etc and the clothes of the deceased and the blood gauze piece of the deceased Draupdi Bansal, deceased Meena Bansal, injured B. N. Bansal and injured Poonam Bansal which were handed over by the doctor. IO also took into possession the blood stains from the offending car, the blood sample from the spot, RC of the offending vehicle, DL of the accused, Insurance of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, the case property was deposited in malkhana. On the next day, post-mortem of the deceased was conducted and after post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. He has correctly identified the accused and the identity of the case property is not disputed and has also identified the 33 photographs of the spot and the offending vehicle. In his cross-examination, he along with IO had gone to the spot at about 1.05 PM. He was on emergency duty with the IO. The case was marked to the IO by the DD writer W/Ct. Anita. When he reached at the spot there was no dead body or injured person present there. The accused was surrounded by about 15-20 public persons. IO had made Vaishali a witness to the proceedings. Vaishali had a wound on her leg. When he and IO reached at the spot, IO received a call regarding transportation of the victims to the hospital. He does not know how were they transported to the hospital. IO returned from the hospital at the spot at about 3.30 PM and handed over rukka to him for registration of FIR. He tried to make enquiries regarding the act of the accused and the public persons present there but they gave him different versions. One person told him that the accused was FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 21 of 56 driving the car with a very fast speed. Some other person told him that the lady had hit the car from behind. He does not know who were these persons. They were not made a witness in the present case by the IO as they had left the spot. He stated that he got the FIR registered at the PS and handed over the rukka to the DO which was copied as the FIR. W/Ct. Anita reached at the spot at about 1.15 PM alone. He further deposed that nobody told them that some other vehicle hit the offending vehicle due to which the offending vehicle got imbalanced. He had signed as a witness of the seizure memo of RC, DL, deposit of case property in the malkhana, arrest of the accused, two pullandas of blood samples, seizure of slippers and glasses, handing over memo of the dead body, personal search memo. He does not remember if he had signed on any memo before the doctor. Whatever IO had given to me, he had signed the same. IO had obtained the blood sample from two places i.e., from the front left side of the car and from the footpath. He had signed on the memo of these samples. Blood stain was present only on the front left side and on the bonnet of the car. In his presence, at the time of investigation of the said case, IO had not made any other person as witness except Vaishali who was the family member of the victims. IO tried to made witness but all the persons left the spot. IO was writing some names but he does not know about it.
15. PW12 HC Maha Singh has deposed that on 25.02.2013, IO ASI Satbir Singh deposited the case property i.e., Santro car no. DL-4CR-3749, some articles, clothes and blood samples in malkhana. Same was mentioned by then MHCM HC Amar Chand in register no. 19 at serial no. 572. He deposed that on 26.02.2013, IO deposited the blood gauze of Meena Bansal FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 22 of 56 and Draupdi Bansal and sample seal in the malkhana. Same was mentioned by then MHCM HC Amar Chand in register no. 19 at serial no. 573. On 27.02.2013, IO deposited the blood gauze of injured Poonam Bansal and injured B. N. Bansal in the malkhana. Same was mentioned by then MHCM HC Amar Chand in register no. 19 at serial no. 579.
16. PW13 Ct. Sanjeev, has deposed that on 19.03.2013, he was posted at PS Dwarka South. On that day, as per instructions of IO, he took the pullanda of blood sample, FSL form and Sample seal from the malkhana and deposited the same in FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 30/21/13. Receiving of the same was handing over to MHCM. No tampering had been done with the said pullanda during his custody.
17. PW14 Ct. Arun Kumar, has deposed that on 25.02.2013, he along with Crime Team went to spot i.e., Sector-1 Bus Stand, JJ Colony, Dwarka, Delhi where as per instructions of IO, he clicked 10 photographs of spot and vehicles from different angles. Today he has brought the negatives of said photographs. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the IO and IC crime team had pointed out the spots on the car of which the photographs had to be taken and based on their instructions, he had taken 10 photographs of the car with numbering placed on back side of each photographs no.11, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 27 & 29. Photographs no. 30, 31, 32 & 33 were not taken by him. The IO and IC Crime Team had told him to take random photographs all around the car. He was told to take photographs of front side, back side, right side, left side, at places where dents were existing and where dents were not existing. He cannot say FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 23 of 56 whether the car was an old car or a new car. There were dents on the front bonnet, on the left-hand side and the bumper was also broken from all sides. He does not remember whether there were blood stains on the car or not. He did not click any photograph of the right-hand side of the car. Only photographs bearing no. 11, 21 & 29 were taken from close angle of the car. Photograph bearing no. 21 is of the front left-hand side of the car. Photograph no. 29 is of the left-hand side of the car and photograph no. 11 is of the front side of the car, which is taken from little distance of the car. The right side of car is not seen in photograph no. 11. He has taken no other photographs of the car. He cannot say about any scratches on the car, whatever scratches are there are in the photographs.
18. PW15 Dr. Nidhi Agarwal, MD, Consultant, Radiology, Bhagat Chandra Hospital, New Delhi has deposed that on 25.02.2013, two patients namely Sh. V. N. Bansal and Smt. Poonam Bansal had been brought for conducting of x-ray. He conducted the same and gave his report.
19. PW16 Dr. D. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Medical Officer, Bhagat Chandra Hospital has deposed that on 25.02.13, he was posted as Sr. Medical Officer in Bhagat Chandra Hospital. On that day, Mrs. Draupdi Bansal, wife of V.N.Bansal, aged 67 years, female, was brought in casualty with alleged history of RTA. He examined and declared her brought dead at 1.05pm, thereafter, he issued brought dead casualty death record certificate.
20. PW17 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, OT Attendant, Forensic Department, DDU Hospital, has deposed that he is FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 24 of 56 authorized by Dr. Komal Singh, HOD, DDU Hospital for deposing on behalf of Dr. Neelam Yadav, who has left the services of the hospital and her whereabouts are not known. On 26.02.2013, Dr. Neelam Yadav, Jr. conducted the post-mortem of dead body of Smt. Draupdi, wife of Sh. V.N.Bansal aged 66 years, female, vide postmortem Ex.PW17/A, bearing signatures of Dr. Neelam Yadav, at pt. A. He deposed that he can identify her signatures as he had seen her signing and writing during the course of his duty.
21. PW17 Dr. Nikhil Yadav, Consultant, Bhagat Chandra Hospital, New Delhi has deposed that on 25.02.13, he was consultant in Bhagat Chandra Hospital and on that day, deceased Meena Bansal, injured V.N. Bansal and Poonam Bansal were admitted in the said hospital after having alleged history of RTA. He prepared MLC of the Meena Bansal after examining her, vide MLC no. 367. He conducted medical examination of injured V.N. Bansal, vide MLC no. 369/13 and conducted medical examination of injured Poonam Bansal, vide MLC no. 368/13. In his cross-examination, he stated that these patients were treated under him till they were admitted in his hospital. He also prepared other documents, relating to treatment of above named three persons. He had examined the patients in the morning and evening and gave treatment/prescriptions. He was supposed to give final opinion about patients after investigation. He was supposed to conduct investigation on patients. Except MLC, he had not submitted any other document to the police regarding treatment of the patients, including his final opinion. There is no final opinion on MLCs prepared by him in case of Poonam Bansal and Meena Bansal. MLC of Sh. V.N. Bansal is FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 25 of 56 his final opinion. After preparation of MLC in respect of V.N. Bansal, treatment was given to him under his supervision between 25.02.13 to 28.02.13. He further stated that patient was admitted on 25.02.13 and was seen twice in a day. Nonsurgical reference was done. Ultrasound and C-T scan was done. Orthopedic reference was done. Eye reference was done and patient was discharged on 28.02.13. The complete treatment file was prepared in this respect. As per record of V.N. Bansal, there was 10cm X 0.5cm, lacerated wound on left temporal area (near forehead towards ear), swelling of right hand, abrasions left knee, tenderness. He was fit when he was discharged from hospital on 28.02.13. No police officer/IO had demanded any treatment details from him in respect of Sh. V.N. Bansal. So, for this reason, he did not submit any such details to the police.
22. PW18 ASI Ram Palli has deposed that on 08.03.13, he was posted at MACT Cell and on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He got verified the DL of accused, insurance & RC of offending vehicle from concerned authority, which were found genuine. He obtained postmortem reports of deceased and MLC of injured persons from the hospital. He obtained claimant paper from the family members of deceased. Offending vehicle was released on superdari. He recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjeev, who deposited the blood sample in FSL and statement of MHC(M) HC Amar Singh was recorded. He also recorded the statement of injured Poonam Bansal and obtained the FSL report, prepared the challan and filed the same in the court through SHO. In his cross-examination, he has stated that besides the above- mentioned proceedings relating to investigation in the said case, FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 26 of 56 he has not done anything else and that rest of the investigation was done by the first IO and he had finally submitted the charge- sheet.
23. PW19 SI Satbir has deposed that on 25.02.2013, on receiving DD no. 22 he alongwith Ct. Satish went to the spot i.e., Bus Stand, near JJ Colony, Sector 1, Dwarka. At the spot, offending vehicle was present and injured were already shifted to hospital. The accused person was present at the spot. He called Crime Team on the spot and one lady constable. Crime team took photographs of the spot. He got information from Bhagat Chandra Hospital that injured is admitted there. He left Ct. Satish and lady Ct. on the spot and went for Bhagat Chandra Hospital. He recorded the statement of eye witness Vaishali and collected the MLCs of all victims from hospital. All the victims were unfit for statement. Thereafter, he returned back at the spot and prepared rukka and handed over it to Ct. Satish for registration of FIR. After some time, Complainant Vaishali along with her father reached at the spot. He prepared site plan at the instance of complainant. In the meantime, Ct. Satish returned back at the spot alongwith rukka and copy of FIR, which he handed over to him. He seized the articles present at the spot and seized the offending vehicle i.e., Santro car, seized the clothes of the deceased Meena Bansal, seized the blood gauze piece of deceased Dropadi Bansal and deceased Meena Bansal, injured V.N. Bansal and injured Poonam Bansal. He collected blood stains from the car and from the spot. He seized the RC of the offending vehicle, DL of accused and insurance papers of the offending vehicle. He arrested the accused and personal search of accused was conducted. The identity of accused is not disputed FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 27 of 56 by the Ld defence Counsel. Thereafter, dead body of the deceased Dropadi Bansal was identified and the dead body of Meena Bansal was handed over to her relatives. The dead body of the deceased Meena Bansal was identified and the same was handed over to her relatives. He got conducted the mechanical inspection of offending vehicle. He then recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of 2-3 public witnesses from the spot and other formal witnesses. He has identified the photographs of the offending vehicle and spot. After conducting postmortem of deceased persons, he had handed over the file to the MACT Cell. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had met several public persons when he had reached at the spot of accident, who had told him about the incident. Some persons had verbally told him that they had witnessed the incident but he asked them to give their statement in writing, they denied for the same. He did not meet any eye witness when he had reached at the spot of accident. Later some persons had told him that they had witnessed the accident and they got recorded their statement. He does not remember their names but they were 2 or 3 in number. He cannot tell about exact number of persons. These persons had met him when he had reached the PS around 5 or 6.00 pm. He cannot tell about the exact time when they had come. He recorded their statements. Ct. Satish was present with him when he recorded the statements of the witnesses. He stated that he does not know the name of accused and as far as he remembers, she is some Arora. He had seized driving license, insurance papers and RC of the offending vehicle. They were all in order. No witness on the spot told him that the lady who was driving the vehicle was eve teased. Some people were saying that some other FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 28 of 56 car had hit the offending vehicle. Some cars were running on a high speed on the road, some people were saying like this. Nobody was interested in making the statement. So, he did not record their statement. The accused remained at the spot and cooperated in the investigation. He had got the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle on the same day i.e., 25.02.2013. He had seen the offending vehicle before the mechanical inspection. The car was damaged in front side and left side. Bumper was totally damaged. Blood stains were found on front left side near the tyre. There were fresh marks on the left and right side of the vehicle. He does not remember the colour of fresh marks on the left and right side of offending vehicle but these marks were fresh. He had done the investigation in this case. He had hand written statements u/s 161 Cr. P.C. of all the witnesses in this case. The witness is shown 161 Cr. P.C. statement of PW- Prashant Kumar S/o Sh. Arun Kumar. He stated that the same was not written by him under his instruction. Statement of witness Prashant was recorded at police post Sector
-1. He cannot say who had written 161 Cr. P.C statement of Prashant Kumar. Vol. Few statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were written by other police officials under his supervision and under his dictation. He cannot tell the names of the police officials to whom he was supervising and directing to write 161 Cr.PC statement. There was no public person was present when the statement of Prashant Kumar was recorded at police post sector 1 Dwarka. Statement of witness Prashant was recorded at 5 pm in the evening. Statement of complainant Vaishali was recorded at 3 pm at the hospital. Prashant had met him on the spot. He approached him to get his statement recorded. Prashant had met FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 29 of 56 him at 1 pm at the time of accident, when he had reached the spot. He had told him that he will come later to give his statement. He had recorded his name and address on a piece of paper but he had not taken any I.D. proof. At around 5 pm sharp, the witness had come to Police Post Dwarka without call to get his statement recorded. He does not remember who all were present with him at the time of recording of statement of witnesses. He does not remember if Prashant had told him that he had made a 100 number call in respect of the accident. He does not remember who had made 100 number call regarding the accident. He had verified it from the number 9312735084, however, he does not remember his name. He does not know if he had included the verification report of the said telephone number in the chargesheet. After perusing the chargesheet in the court today, he did not found out any verification report of the said telephone number nor does he remember doing the same. Then, IO was made to read the statement of witness Sh. Prashant which he had recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C, then he stated that he had recorded his statement at the spot. No witness ever approached him to state that the accident done by the accused was because some persons were eve teasing the accused was driving the vehicle and no witness also gave him anything in writing regarding the abovesaid fact. He stated that the witnesses who had come and met him, he had recorded their statements. One Anil Narang had approached him to become a witness in this case and he had also recorded his statement. Anil Narang had told him about the accident. He had made Anil Narang a witness in this case. He had also recorded the fact in the case diary regarding recording the statement of Anil Narang.
FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 30 of 5624. PW20 Dr. B.N. Mishra, Sr. Medical Officer cum Medico Legal Expert and Criminologist, Department of Forensic Medicines, DDU Hospital, has deposed that he was working in the Department of Forensic Medicines, DDU Hospital, since 2001. He was deputed by MS DDU Hospital on behalf of Dr. Mrinal Gogoi, who has left the services of the hospital, whose whereabouts are not available in the department. He deposed that on 26.02.13, the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Meena Bansal, W/o Sh. Sanjay Bansal, aged 45 years, was conducted by Dr. Mrinal Gogoi and had prepared the postmortem report and opined that the cause of death was due to Hemorrhagic shock subsequent injuries to vital organs followed by Road Traffic Accident. The time of death was consistent to time of hospital death. In this case, the injuries sustained on the body of deceased were antemortem in nature and same of duration. He identified his signatures since he has seen him writing and signing during course of official duty in the department.
25. PW-21 Mr. Krishan Pal Singh, record clerk, DDU, Hospital, has deposed that he has brought the record pertaining to postmortem report no. 249/13 of Smt. Draupadi. As per postmortem report, postmortem was conducted by Dr. Neelam Yadav, Jr. Resident and the cause of death is due to Hemorrhagic Shock subsequent to head injury and injury to multiple vital organs followed by Road Traffic accident. He can identify her signature as he has worked with her.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED PERSON AND
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 31 of 56
26. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against her, the statement of the accused person was recorded on 02.04.2018 without oath under section 313 CrPC, wherein she has stated that she was driving in a slow speed but a cherry colour car from her right side hit her car and that car was in a very high speed and fled away. She stated that she lost control due to which her car hit some people from their back side who were walking on road and were going towards red light. She immediately stopped the car and the police also came at the spot. She stated that many people had told the police that it was not her fault because these people were walking on the road and cherry colour car had hit her car due to which she lost control. She also stated that after few days of the accident, family members of the injured and the deceased came to her residence and raised hue and cry for which a 100 no. complaint has been filed as they had demanded money and committed extortion. She has stated that she is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. She further stated that she wants to lead defence evidence.
27. During the trial, defence led the following oral and documentary evidence to rebut the case of the prosecution;-
ORAL EVIDENCE
DW-1 Sh. J.S. Sethi
DW-2 Sh. Abhay Arora
DW-3 Sh. Anil Narang
DW-4 Sh. Saran Pal Singh
DW-5 Sh. Arun Arora
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.DW1/A CD containing cctv footage
Ex.DW1/B Authorization by management society
FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 32 of 56
Ex.DW1/C Certificate under section 65B of IEA
Ex.DW2/A Carbon copy of complaint dated 09.03.2013
Ex.DW3/A Statement made to the police
28. DW1 Sh. J.S. Sethi (Vice President of Managing Committee Sheetal Vihar CGHS Ltd), has deposed that there was a CD recorded of CCTV camera in the society on 09.03.13. He has come for the sole purpose of exhibiting the said CD certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act and that he has been authorized by the Management Committee of the society. In his cross examination by the State, he stated that he is the President of Sheetal Vihar, CGHS Ltd, Plot No.10, Sector 23, Dwarka, New Delhi. In the year 2013, he was the Vice President of the said society. He does not have any document to show that he was the Vice President of the said society in the year 2013. He stated that the manager of the society was incharge of the monitoring of the CCTV surveillance and he was not monitoring the CCTV camera on 09.03.2013. He stated that he does not have any personal knowledge about the accident in question.
29. DW2, Sh. Abhay Arora has deposed that he is the brother-in-law of the accused. He was telephonically informed by his niece, Ms. Janvi Arora at around 3.30 pm that around 10-15 unknown persons had forcefully entered house of accused person. The said persons were using abusive language and were creating a huge ruckus in the house of accused. He immediately called at 100 no. and thereafter, immediately reached the spot of the incident. At the house of accused, there was huge crowd of persons out of which, 3-4 unknown persons were recording videos of the said incident. These persons were part of the same FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 33 of 56 group of 10-15 persons. He tried to pacify the situation but to no avail as these persons did not calm down and illegally demanded a sum of money. The demand of money varied from person to person and was approximately from Rs.10 to Rs.20 lakhs. The said demand was in lieu of settlement of the accident which had been caused by the accused. Out of the group of people, one lady was saying that her husband was in CBI. One person namely Gaurav of that group was making attempt to beat them and also demanded money. Meanwhile, police reached at the spot and police controlled the situation and sent the persons outside the house. He had made a complaint at the PS Sector-23, Dwarka of the said incident. In his cross examination by the State, he stated that he has been in business of manufacturing at Sitapuri, New Delhi and he is the proprietor of the said business. He stated that he goes to his manufacturing unit daily and normally his duty hours are from 9.30 AM to 8.00 PM. On 09.03.2013, he received a call on his mobile number from the mobile number of his niece namely Janvi Arora. He does not remember the mobile number of Janvi Arora. Around 3.30 PM when he received a call he was at his residence at Pankha Road, Janak Puri. He is the brother-in-law of Sonia Arora. He reached at the house of Sonia Arora at about 4.15 PM by his personal car whose registration number he does not remember. He was alone at his house when his niece called him. He has a wife and two daughters. His wife also looks after his business and she was not at home when his niece called him. He does not remember about the location of his wife at the time when his niece called him. At that time, his both daughters were students and they might be attending their classes when he received the call from his niece. He does not know the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 34 of 56 name of that lady who was saying that her husband is in CBI. He had given a written complaint to the police regarding the incident in question. At the time when he reached at the residence of Sonia Arora, her daughter Janvi (then aged about 15/16 years) and her son namely Karan Arora (then aged about 13 years) were present. Only these two family members were present along with Sonia Arora at her residence at the time of incident, narrated by him. Those persons were demanding the money from Sonia Arora and her children. There are guards at the main gate of the society. Those persons forcefully entered in the society. He cannot comment whether guards called 100 number after the alleged persons forcefully entered in the society. He had pursued the complaint three to four times at PS Sector 23 Dwarka but he does not know whether any FIR was lodged on the same or not. He had not made any complaint regarding the said incident to any other authority. RWA of the said society made the complaint to PS. He does not have any knowledge about the present status of the said complaint. He does not have the copy of the said complaint. He was never called by the police qua the complaint made by the RWA to the Police as a witness. He does not know any person by the name of Sharanpal Singh and Anil Narang. He stated that he was not present at the spot when the accident in question has taken place and therefore, he cannot comment upon the said accident.
30. DW3 Sh Anil Narang, has deposed that on 25.02.2013, he was going from his office to home at about 12:40 p.m. and when he took a right turn from nala near electricity office while he was in his car, he heard a voice. He stated that he saw at his left side that one SUV car who drove very fast and FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 35 of 56 rashly and heard a voice as if said SUV car had hit somewhere. He stopped his car and saw that one santro car had met with an accident. He deposed that two three persons were lying on the road and that he came out of his car and saw that one lady standing and on his asking told him that one accident took place. He saw front side that said SUV car drove away speedily from right side of red light. He asked for help and on this police officials standing there took his number and that he also asked police officials on phone if statement is required or not and thereafter he made a statement before the police. In his cross examination, he stated that he has an office at Karampura in the name of Ashok K Mahindra & Company. He is the partner of the said company and that he visits his office daily. He normally reaches at the office at about 10.00 AM and leave the same at about 4.30 to 5.00 PM. It takes 45 minutes to reach the office from his house in Sargoda Apartment, Sector 7 Dwarka. He was coming back to his house in his Maruti Esteem car bearing no.8718 and that on that day he was coming in afternoon. He left the office at about 12.00 Noon. As he was not feeling well and therefore, he left the office in the afternoon only. He drove back himself the car to his house. He called the doctor and he told him to take rest. No medication was prescribed to him by the doctor. There are two partners in the above-mentioned company and name of another partner is Ashok Gupta. He does not remember whether he informed Sh. Ashok Gupta before leaving the office or not. When he reached at the spot one police official was present there but he does not remember his name. Two injured persons were lying on the road when he reached there. He cannot tell the make of SUV which was being driven rashly or FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 36 of 56 negligently. The accident in question did not take place in his presence therefore, he cannot tell the manner in which the victims/deceased in the present case were hit. The colour of the SUV might be cherry red. The police did not record his statement in the present case. He did not dial 100 number regarding the hit took place by some SUV car. At the time of incident, Arun Arora was not known to him.
31. DW-4 Sh. Saran Pal Singh, stated that on 25.02.2013, he was standing in his balcony as he resides at 5 th floor of Mandakani Apartment and that at about 12:30/12:45 p.m., he saw one red colour SUV car passed away after hitting one santro car from right side. Due to this, santro car got imbalanced which further hit 4-5 people standing near the bus stop on the road. Out of curiosity, he came out and till that time police had already arrived. When he reached there, he came to know that 4-5 persons got injured who were shifted to the hospital and that he remained there for one or one and half hour. There he met the accused and her husband. He gave her number saying that if there is any help required from his side, he is ready for the same. He has never met them before the incident. In his cross examination, he has stated that he is a development officer at LIC, A-3/24, Janakpuri since November 1992. Normal office timing is from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm but he has a field job and he has to visit once a day. It takes 05-07 minutes of walk to reach at the spot from his flat. The distance between the balcony where he was standing and the spot is 100-150 mtrs. He was standing in his balcony facing towards the road. He can tell from the distance of 100-150 mtrs about the make, nature and color of any vehicle. It took 10 minutes to reach at the spot from his balcony. A lot of FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 37 of 56 public persons were present at the spot along with some police officials when he reached at the spot. When he reached at the spot, injured persons had already been taken to the hospital. He cannot tell the exact number of injured persons as he had not seen them. He does not remember the time when he reached at the spot nor he can tell the time when he left the spot. He cannot tell the exact number of police officials, however, he had seen 04-05 police officials at the spot. During the time, he remained at the spot, he was talking to the public persons present there. Two public persons told him that they had seen the accident happening. He cannot tell the name of these persons. Police official did not enquire from the public persons he is referring to in his presence. Police did not record his statement at the spot. He did not meet the police officials present at the spot. He cannot tell any reason why he did not meet the police officials who were present at the spot when he reached there. He had met the accused and her husband for the first time at the spot when they were standing at the spot together. He did not ask from the accused about the manner in which the accident in question took place. As a responsible citizen he did not contact the police officials present at the spot and offered his help and provided his contacts number to them. He had spoken to the husband of the accused twice-thrice on phone and in person regarding the accident. He does not remember the dates when he met Mr. Arun Arora or spoke to him on the phone. He does not remember the date when he last spoke to Mr. Arun Arora. He spoke to Mr. Arun Arora after a month for the first time after they met on the spot on the day of the accident. Mr. Arun Arora contacted him after a month. Mr. Arun Arora also works in LIC department at the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 38 of 56 office situated in the Janakpuri which he came to know after the accident. They do not work in the same office as there are 05-06 offices of LIC in Janakpuri. All these offices are not in the same block rather they are situated at different places in Janakpuri. Mr. Arun Arora is also a development officer with LIC. He stated that he took about 15-20 minutes for proceeding from his house to the spot where the accident occurred.
32. DW-5, Sh. Arun Arora has deposed that he is the husband of the accused and that on 09.03.2013 at around 4-4:40 p.m., he received a call from his daughter, Ms. Jahnvi Arora in a panic state where she informed her that around 12-15 people have forcefully entered their residence and they have forcefully locked them in a room and they were abusing and threatening her wife, Sonia Arora. She pleaded him to come for their rescue and at that time he was in the office which is located at Janakpuri. On directing her to immediately call the police, he was told that her mobile phone was snatched by these people who entered their house forcefully. When he reached his house in about 15-20 minutes then he came to know that these people are the members of the Bansal family and they were threatening his wife because of the inadvertent accident that took place in the year 2013. He got to know that these persons also threatened his kids and threatened to kill them in same type of accident. Till then many members have gathered around his house in at that time even his brother and the police officials were present at his residence. One member amongst the 12-15 people who entered his house forcefully namely Gaurav Bansal made an elicit demand of Rs. 20,00,000/- in order to compensate for the accident. He stated that after a lot of persuasion and efforts on their part and on the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 39 of 56 part of the society members and the police officials, these people were made to leave the house forcefully namely Gaurav Bansal made an elicit demand of Rs.20,00,000/- in order to compensate for the accident. They had lodged a complaint in the PS in the evening regarding the incident. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has been residing in the society mentioned by him in his examination in chief for last 15 years. On the day, when the incident alleged by him i.e., 09.03.2013 took place there were three guards on duty on the main gate of their society. The procedure to allow any stranger inside the society is that firstly he is asked that which house is to be visited and thereafter, concerned flat member has to be consulted before giving entry to any stranger and after making the entry in the register maintain at the entry gate of the society. He is a graduate (B.A) and he has been working as Development officer at LIC of India, Janak Puri, New Delhi. Sh. Sharanpal Singh also works in the LIC and he knows him. One person namely Gaurav was relative of the deceased and he does not know him personally. The distance between his society and his office Janak Puri is about 8 Kms. The timings of his office is 10.00 AM to 5.00 PM. He then deposed that he is in marketing team so as such there is no fixed timings. He was not present with his wife nor he was present near the spot where the accident took place on 25.02.2013. Since he was not present near the spot so he does not comment on the manner of the driving of the accused. He had made the complaint against the intruders of 09.03.2013 at the PS Sector 23 Dwarka. No FIR was lodged on their complaint. He has not made any separate complaint regarding the fact that the SHO PS Sector 23 Dwarka had not registered any FIR on my complaint. He had not made FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 40 of 56 any complaint in the court against the alleged persons who forcefully entered in his house and threatened his family members.
ARGUMENTS
33. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
34. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
35. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Ld. Counsel further argued that the entire case of the prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from the material on record. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
36. The accused has been charged for the offences of rash driving on public way (S. 279 IPC) and causing simple injuries (S.337 IPC), causing grievous injuries (S.338 IPC) and FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 41 of 56 causing death by a rash or negligent act (S. 304A IPC) in the present case. Whereas under Section 279 IPC, the factum of rash or negligent driving likely to endanger human life or cause hurt etc. is in itself the offence, under Section 304A IPC, death of the victim, simple injuries under Section 337 IPC and grievous injuries under Section 338 IPC. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was driving the offending in a rash or negligent manner, and due to such driving of the accused, the victim suffered injuries. The act should not amount to culpable homicide.
37. Thus, the gravamen of the offences under Section 279/337/338/304-A IPC is the act of the accused, done with "rashness" or "negligence". The IPC does not define either of these terms. However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by judicial pronouncements of superior Courts. In Empress of India vs. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776 the term "rashness" was interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or recklessness towards the consequences of such act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathnashalvan vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under-
"7. .... Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what the amount of care and circumspection is which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 42 of 56 further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused. As noted above, "rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
38. Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal vs. CBI (2014) 6 SCC
173. The standard of negligence was discussed in the said case, by observing, inter alia, as under-:
"58. In the case of "negligence" the courts have favoured a meaning which implies a gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge arises, it may be the imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. Negligence has been understood to be an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. Unlike rashness, where the imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness, negligence implies acting without such consciousness, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him. The imputability in the case of negligence arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
39. Thus, rashness implies doing an act despite the consciousness that it might result in injuries. Negligence, on the other hand, means lack of reasonable care that a person placed is the fact situation ought to take, in order to avoid injuries. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 43 of 56 accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
40. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that an accident had taken place and as a result two people have died, namely Smt. Draupadi Bansal and Smt. Meena Bansal and two people have sustained injuries, namely Sh. V N Bansal and Smt. Poonam Bansal on the date of the incident. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of the star witnesses, i.e., PW-5 Sh. V.N. Bansal, PW-6 Ms. Vaishali, PW-8 Sh. Prashant and PW-9 Smt. Poonam Bansal, who have deposed that on the date of the incident, the accused was driving the santro car bearing no. DL-4CR-3749 in a very fast speed and uncontrollable situation and had hit them due to which PW-5 and PW-9 fell down on the road and Smt. Draupadi Bansal and Smt. Meena Bansal fell down from the bonnet of the car and died as a result.
41. It is trite law that it is not the opinion of the witness as regards the rash and negligent driving of the accused which is significant, but what is essential is the depiction of the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven for which a reliance is being placed upon Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State Crl. Rev. Petition 627/2016 pronounced on 12.11.2018 by the Hon'ble Delhi HC. In the present case, the aforesaid witnesses had deposed that the driver of the car was driving in a high speed and in a negligent manner and had hit the victims of the instant case who were walking on the road adjacent to the footpath which shows the reckless attitude of the accused. Moreover, the site plan vide Ex. PW-19/B bears the sketch as to how the FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 44 of 56 accident had occurred and the same also bears the signature of the complainant, PW-6, Vaishali and the IO PW-19, SI Satyavir Singh. It depicts the state of affairs as told by PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 and further corroborated by the testimonies of PW-8 and PW-19 regarding the accident in question.
42. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has further contended that the accident did not occur due to the negligence and rashness of the accused rather the car of the accused was hit by another cherry colour car due to which the car of the accused got disbalanced which has been supported by the version of the prosecution witnesses themselves i.e., PW-3, Sh. Puran Chand, Retd. Mechanical Inspector, PW-7 Sh. Sunil Sharma and defence witnesses, DW-3, Anil Narang, DW-4, Sh. Saran Pal Singh. It is contended that the accused in her statement recorded under section 313 CrPC has also taken the same plea when incriminating evidence was put to her. In the instant case, PW-3 in his cross-examination has deposed that on inspection of the offending vehicle, he found that on the front right side of the santro car on the bumper and the body, there were fresh scratch marks which were red in colour and that the same was not blood and that the same may have been caused due to the hit with another red colour car, however in his re-examination, he has stated that he inadvertently could not mention anything about the scratch mark in his report and that he remembered it after seeing the report and the police file. It is worthy to note that PW-3 has himself admitted that there is nothing on record which made him to recollect in his cross-examination that the colour of the scratch was red and that he recollected the same based on his memory. Perusal of the mechanical inspection report vide Ex. PW-3/A FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 45 of 56 reveals nothing regarding the red scratch mark rather the same mentions the damage which has been caused after the accident i.e., fresh damage on the engine vent, damage on the front left side, etc. Further, from the photographs vide Ex.PW8/A1 to PW8/A33, it is clear that there was no red scratch mark on the right side of the offending car. As documentary evidence prevails over the oral evidence in terms of section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, the testimony of PW-3 is not credible in the light of the other documentary evidence on record. Also, under Indian law, the evidence of hostile witness is not discarded completely. The legal maxim, "false in uno false in omnibus" is not applicable in India. With respect to the evidentiary value of hostile witness, it was observed by the Apex Court in the case of Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434, as under -
"25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof."
43. Thus, the testimony of PW-3 can be relied upon in part to the effect which is reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, it can be said that on front side of the Santro car on the bumper and the body there were fresh marks which is further corroborated by his mechanical inspection report vide Ex.PW3/A which is reliable and credible to that extent, even though his oral testimony is shakeable.
44. Further, PW-7 Sunil Sharma has deposed that he saw one cherry colour car coming from the power house in a FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 46 of 56 very fast and negligent manner and had hit the Santro car from the right side due to which the said Santro car had hit three to four women and one old man as the said car was disbalanced. However, in his statement recorded under section 161 CrPC, the witness has not stated anything about the said cherry colour hitting the offending vehicle and has rather stated that the offending vehicle was driving the car in a rash and negligent manner. In view of the contradictory stand taken by PW-7, his testimony is not credible and trustworthy and thus reliance cannot be placed upon. Moreover, the accused has also produced DW-3, Sh. Anil Narang who has also deposed similarly to PW-7 that he saw one SUV car was being driven in a fast and rash manner and that he heard a voice as if the said SUV car had hit somewhere and that when he stopped his car and saw that one santro car had met with an accident and two-three persons were lying on the road. It is clear from the testimony of DW-3 that he was not the eye-witness to the accident and has merely relied upon the voice of SUV car being hit somewhere, thus, his testimony cannot be relied upon. Also, DW-4, Saran Pal Singh has deposed that he saw one red colour SUV car passed away after hitting the offending vehicle, due to which the said Santro car became imbalanced which had further hit 4-5 people on the road from his balcony. However, in his cross-examination, he has stated that the distance between his balcony where he was standing and the place of the accident was about 100-150 mtrs. and it has also come on record that DW-4 and the husband of the accused both works as a development officer in the LIC at Janakpuri, thus, his testimony is not reliable as he is an interested witness as he has also stated that the husband of the accused FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 47 of 56 himself contacted the DW-4 after one month of the accident. It is imperative to note that PW-7, DW-3 and DW-4 have put the blame on the cherry colour car, however none of the said witness have provided the registration number of the said cherry colour which can suggest that the accident had caused due to the negligence or rashness of the said car and not the offending vehicle. Thus, the plea of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the offending vehicle was hit by another car has not been proved and is hereby rejected.
45. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has also contended that the testimony of PW-8 cannot be relied upon as he is a spot witness and has been planted in order to corroborate the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. He contended that PW-8 has contradicted his own statement and has made improvements which makes his testimony unreliable as PW-8 has stated that the accused was arrested before his statement was recorded and that his statement was recorded on the spot while in his testimony, he has deposed that he had immediately left the spot after the police had arrived and that his statement was recorded in the night. He also submitted that the arrest memo of the accused bears the signature of PW-8. However, it is a well settled law when the case of the prosecution is otherwise proved, the minor contradictions in the testimony of a prosecution witness do not affect the case of the prosecution. In the instant case, PW-5, PW- 6 and PW-9 have categorically deposed that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the accused and there is no reason on record to disbelieve their testimonies.
FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 48 of 5646. The Ld. Counsel for the accused contended that the testimonies of PW5, PW-6 and PW-9 cannot be relied upon as they are interested witnesses as the deceased was their relative and the present case has only been filed in order to claim the compensation amount. The witnesses are admittedly related to the deceased and to each other, however, it is a settled that the testimony of the related witness cannot be discarded merely because they were related to the deceased victim. Moreover, the case of the prosecution is also corroborated by another eye- witness, i.e., PW-8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Hakim Singh [AIR 1980 SC 184] has held that being near relations and living practically in the same house, these witnesses cannot be said to interested witnesses but are very natural witnesses. It was further held in the case of State of Haryana v. Shakuntala [AIR 2012 SC 2123] that the statement of the witness could not be rejected merely on the ground that it was a statement of the related or interested witness. In the instant case, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-9 have lost their close relatives and they had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW5, PW-6 and PW-9 when the same are found to be credible.
47. Further, PW-11, Ct. Satish Kumar in his testimony has deposed that he had accompanied PW-19 SI Satbir, IO to the spot after receiving DD no. 22PP regarding the accident at Sector-1, JJ Colony, near bus stop, Dwarka. When they reached at the spot, they found the accused and the offending vehicle and, in the meanwhile, IO received a call regarding the admission of injured at Bhagat Chandra Hospital. Thereafter, IO went to the said hospital and after that he came back at the spot and prepared FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 49 of 56 the rukka and handed over to him for the registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he returned back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO and thereafter, W/Ct. Anita also reached at the spot. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and her personal search was conducted and the IO took the offending vehicle into possession and the articles which were found at the spot. The witness in his cross-examination has deposed that on enquiring regarding the act of the accused, public persons had given different versions. He deposed that one told that the accused was driving the car in a very fast speed while some other person told him that the lady had hit the car from behind, however, he also clarified that nobody told that some other vehicle had hit the offending vehicle due to which the offending vehicle got imbalanced. He also stated that the IO had obtained the blood samples from two places i.e., from the left side of the car and from the footpath. He also stated that IO made only Vaishali as a witness in his presence and that he tried to make other witness but all the persons had left the spot. His testimony is further corroborated by PW-19 SI Satbir. He also deposed that he recorded the statement of 2-3 witnesses from the spot and other formal witnesses. It is imperative to note that IO has deposed that some people were saying that some other car had hit the offending vehicle and some were saying that some cars were running on a high speed on the road, however, no prosecution witness has been able to adduce evidence as to which car had hit the offending vehicle. He has further stated that no witness approached him stating that the accident was done by the accused because some persons were eve teasing the accused while he was driving the vehicle. IO has also stated that Anil FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 50 of 56 Narang approached him for recording of his statement which was duly recorded by the IO. PW-14 Ct. Arun Kumar has deposed that he took 10 photographs of the spot and vehicles from different angles. He has also stated that there were dents on the front bonnet, on the left side and the bumper was also broken from all the sides. There was no improbable fact, which accused could cull out from the testimonies of the PW-11, PW-14 and PW-19. Therefore, the testimony of PW-11, PW-14 and PW-19 is found to be trustworthy and reliable.
48. PW-2 HC Paramjeet has deposed that he had registered the FIR in question. To that extent, he stuck to his version. In his examination, he gave details of his duty hours and had also deposed that the FIR was registered on the rukka brought by PW-11, Ct. Satish for handing it over to PW-19, ASI Satbir. So, there was nothing improbable, in his testimony and thus, the same is trustworthy and reliable.
49. In order to prove the injuries, the prosecution has examined Dr. Nidhi Agarwal as PW-15 who gave the x-ray report of Sh. V.N. Bansal and Smt. Poonam Bansal and that Dr. D. Bhattacharjee was examined as PW-16 deposed that Smt. Draupadi Bansal was brought dead which has not been rebutted by the accused. Further, the MLC of Sh. V.N. Bansal and Smt. Poonam Bansal was prepared by Dr. Nikhil Yadav who has deposed as PW-17. Further, PW-20 Dr B N Mishra, has deposed on behalf of Dr Mrinal Gogoi and PW-21 Krishan Pal Singh on behalf of Dr Neelam Yadav, who have opined in the postmortem report of deceased Meena Bansal and deceased Draupadi respectively that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage shock FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 51 of 56 subsequent injuries to vital organs followed by road traffic accident. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has not able to bring any fact in order to contradict the testimonies of the said doctors.
50. It has also been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that there are certain inconsistencies/lacunae in the version of the prosecution witnesses, for instance, the prosecution witnesses have given different versions regarding the manner in which offending vehicle was being driven by the accused, for instance, PW-5 deposed that the offending vehicle was in a very fast speed and uncontrollable situation coming from the back side and had hit all of them. While PW-6 has deposed that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a zig zag manner while PW-9 has deposed that the accused was driving the car in a fast and negligent manner and had firstly hit her and thereafter her mother-in-law due to which she and her mother-in-law had fell down on the bonnet of the car. He further contended that PW-6 first stated that the offending vehicle had hit her first which is contradictory to the testimony of PW-9 who has deposed that she got hit first. Moreover, PW-11 has deposed that IO had not recorded the statement of the public persons except of PW Vaishali whereas IO has stated that the statement of the eye- witnesses were recorded in the presence of PW-11. Thus, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that there are material contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and that no other independent public person was made a witness in the case or was joined by the IO during investigation is not acceptable as the prosecution has proved its case otherwise. It has further been argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and that the benefit FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 52 of 56 of doubt be given to the accused person. However, the same in the opinion of this court is barely material if viewed in the backdrop of the otherwise strong and coherent case of the prosecution. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Ibrahim v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 601] that, "normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so."
51. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the IO had not conducted a fair and proper investigation and there are material discrepancies in the investigation. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the IO has not made any investigation regarding the car which had hit the offending vehicle and had not recorded the statements of the witnesses who have supported the case of the accused. However, it is pertinent to note that none of the defence witnesses have been able to prove that there was any other car as they have failed to provide any registration number of the said car. It is highly unlikely that witnesses have seen the SUV car hitting the offending car but failed to remember the registration number of the said car. It is also contended by the Ld Counsel that PW-14 Ct Arun has not taken the photographs of the right hand side of the offending vehicle in order to favour of the case of the prosecution. The plea that the benefit of doubt be given to the accused as the investigation conducted by the IO is defective and improper is FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 53 of 56 not tenable as it would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designed to be defective. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Muniappan and Others vs State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 9 SCC 567 with regard to the defective investigation has observed as under, "Defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. Where there has been negligence on the part of the investigating agency or omissions, etc., which resulted in defective investigation, there is a legal obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses carefully to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not and to what extent it is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the objects of finding out the truth. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the Investigating Officer and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the fake and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded."
52. The Ld. Counsel for the accused also contended that the accused be given benefit of doubt as it is a case of contributory negligence as also been observed by the court of MACT as the complainant and the injured were walking on the road instead of the pavement. However, it is a settled law that plea of contributory negligence is not applicable to criminal law, thus, his plea is rejected as not maintainable. The Ld. Counsel for the accused further submitted that the victims and their family members had visited the house of the accused after the accident and had demanded money to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs - Rs.20 lakhs from the accused and that a separate complaint has been filed against the complainant and his family members vide Ex.
FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 54 of 56DW2/A, however that is not relevant to the facts of the present case. When the prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the accused then it is immaterial whether the family of the victim had visited the house of the accused and had demanded money, if any. As the accused has already filed a separate complaint with regard to the same, it will not have any bearing on the facts of the present case.
53. Therefore, the lapses which have been pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused does not materially affect the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the same leads to the conclusion that the accused was driving his vehicle in a such rash and negligent manner that it caused the death of the two people, namely, Smt. Draupadi Bansal and Smt. Meena Bansal and caused grievous injuries to Smt. Poonam Bansal and simple injuries to Sh. V.N. Bansal by the offending vehicle.
CONCLUSION
54. To recapitulate the above discussion, to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution was required to prove the offence charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the complainant and other witnesses is coherent and directly implicates the accused. The defence has failed to punch a hole in the consistent testimony of the prosecution witnesses. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.
55. Resultantly, the accused, Ms. Sonia Arora is hereby found guilty for offences under section FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 55 of 56 279/337/338/304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is convicted accordingly. Let the convict be heard separately on sentencing.
Announced in the open court on 29.04.2023 in the presence of the accused.
(Kratika Chaturvedi) Metropolitan Magistrate-04, Dwarka, Delhi/29.04.2023 Note:- This judgment contains 56 pages and each page has been signed by me.
FIR No. 52/13, PS Dwarka South State vs. Sonia Arora Page 56 of 56