Delhi District Court
State vs . Madan Lal on 15 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Madan Lal
FIR No. 179/07
U/s : 279/337/338 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 17.11.2007
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 15.03.2013
Date of judgment : 15.03.2013
JUDGMENT
1.Sl. No. of the case : 269/02
2.Date of the Commission : 14.02.2007
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Madan Lal S/o Sh. Bihari Lal
: R/o H. No. A-216, Jhilmil Colony,
: Shahadra, New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Gautman K.M. s/o Sh. Mohnan K.G.
: R/o H. No. 27/3, ward no. 1, Mehrauli,
: New Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : 279/337/338 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted u/s 279/337/338 IPC
State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 1/11
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 14.02.2007 at 11:30 pm at Aurobindo Marg, Adhchini T Point red light, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, the accused Madan Lal was found driving vehicle i.e. TSR bearing no. DL-1RD-4077 on a public place in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and and hit against motorcycle bearing No. DL-3SB-2209 due to which complainant Gautman received simple injury and injured/pillion rider Dinesh received grievous injuries and thereby committed offences punishable under section 279/337/338 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant Gautman, an FIR bearing number 179/07 under section 279/337/338 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 17.11.2007.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offence punishable under section 279/337/338 IPC was framed against the accused person namely Madan Lal and read out to the said accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 14.05.2010.
Appreciation of Evidence
5. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused Lallan Singh, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses.
6. Out of the 6 witnesses examined, PW-1 Sh. Shadi Lal being retired foreman DTC was examined on 13.05.2011 who is a formal witness and conducted the mechanical inspection of TSR bearing no. DL-1RD-4077 State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 2/11 and motorcycle make Hero Honda bearing no. DL-3SBE-2209 on the request of the IO and their detailed report are Ex. PW-1/A and B respectively.
7. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
8. PW-2 HC Jitender was examined on 11.07.2011 who is a formal witness and proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW-2/A and his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW-2/B.
9. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
10. PW-2 Gauthaman K.M. being the complainant was examined on 17.12.2012 and deposed that on 14.02.07 he along with his friend/colleague Binesh was coming from his office which is situated at Maharani bagh on motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SBE-2209 and were going to his residence at Mehrauli. He further deposed that at about 11.30pm when they reached at Adhchini Red Light, Aurbindo Marg, one TSR bearing no. DL-1RD-4077 came from wrong side and hit against his motorcycle due to which he along with his friend Binesh fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Thereafter, he informed the police at 100 number and after some time PCR van reached at the spot and took him, Binesh and accused to AIIMS Hospital where they were medically examined and treated. He further deposed that after some time the police also reached the hospital and recorded his statement which is Ex. PW-3/A. Thereafter, after registration of the case police seized the TSR and his motorcycle vide memos Ex. PW-3B & C. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-3/D and E both bearing his signature at point A.
11. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 3/11
12. PW-4 Binesh being the injured was examined on 17.12.2012 and deposed that on 14.02.07 he along with his friend/colleague Gauthaman K.M. was coming from his office which is situated at Maharani bagh on motorcycle bearing no. DL-3SBE-2209 and were going to his residence at Mehrauli. He further deposed that at about 11.30pm when they reached at Adhchini Red Light, Aurbindo Marg, one TSR bearing no. DL-1RD-4077 came from wrong side and hit against his motorcycle due to which he along with his friend Binesh fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Thereafter, his friend Gauthaman K.M. informed the police at 100 number and after some time PCR van reached at the spot and took him, Gauthaman K.M. and accused to AIIMS Hospital where they were medically examined and treated. He further deposed that after some time the police also reached the hospital and recorded his statement and the statement of the complainant Gauthaman K.M. which is already Ex. PW-3/A.
13. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
14 PW-5 HC Rajender Kumar was examined on 19.02.2013 and deposed that on 14.02.2007 on receipt of DD no. 30A he along with ASI Brahm Prakash went to the spot at Adhchini Red Light where motor cycle no. DL3S BE-2209 and TSR No. DL1RD-4077 were found in a accidental condition at the patri. On interrogation it was revealed that injured had been removed to AIIMS Hospital. Thereafter, IO left him at the spot and went to AIIMS Hospital and IO came back at the spot at about 3.30 am and handed over the Tehrir to me for the registration of FIR and he came back at the spot after the registration of FIR and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO. He further deposed that IO prepared a site plan in his presence and the offending vehicles were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 4/11 and 3/C respectively. The DL of the accused was seized in his presence vide memo Ex.PW5/A which bears his signatures at point A. Thereafter accused present in the court on that day was arrested and his arrest memo and personal search memo were being prepared in his presence vide memos already Ex.PW3/D and 3/E and both the memos bear his signatures at point B. IO recorded his statement to this effect. Further, accused submit that the identity of the case property is not dispute hence the production of the same was dispensed with.
15. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
16. PW-6 SI Brahm Prakash being IO was examined on 19.02.2013 and deposed that on 14.02.2007 on receipt of DD no. 30A he along with Ct. Rajendra went to the spot at Adhchini Red Light where motor cycle no. DL3S BE-2209 and TSR No. DL1RD-4077 were found in a accidental condition at the patri. On interrogation it was revealed that injured had been removed to AIIMS Hospital. Thereafter, he left Ct. Rajendra at the spot and went to AIIMS Hospital where he came to know that injured Madan Lal, Dinesh and Gautam were found admitted at the hospital. He recorded the statement of complainant vide memo already Ex.PW3/A. He came back at the spot and prepared tehrir vide memo Ex.PW6/A and got the case registered through Ct. Rajendra and Ct. came back at the spot after the registration of FIR and handed over copy of FIR and original tehrir to him. He prepared a site plan which is Ex.PW6/B and the offending vehicles were seized by him vide seizure memo already Ex.PW3/B and 3/C respectively. The DL of the accused was seized vide memo already Ex.PW5/A. He issued a notice u/s 133 MV Act to the accused and his reply as well as notice is Ex.PW6/C. Both the vehicles were got mechanically examined by the expert. The State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 5/11 accused present in the court on that day was arrested and his arrest memo and personal search memo were already Ex.PW3/D and 3/E. He obtained the MLC of the injured from the hospital.
17. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunities given.
18. After completion of evidence, statement of accused was recorded on 15.03.2013 in which the accused does not want to lead defence evidence.
19. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence counsel. Heard. Considered.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTION To bring home the guilt of accused as regards rash and negligent driving, three things need to be proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
(1)That the accident actually took place. (2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
(3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
The words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
Quoting from the article "Negligence, Mens Rea and Criminal Responsibility" by H.L.A.Hart in Punishment and Responsibility the dictionary further goes on to explain the difference between an act done State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 6/11 inadvertently and an act done negligently.
"[A] careful consideration is needed of the difference between the meaning of the expression like 'inadvertently' and 'while his mind was a blank' on the one hand, and 'negligently' on the other hand. In ordinary English, and also in Lawyer's English, when harm has resulted from someone's negligence, if we say of that person that he has acted negligently we are not thereby merely describing the frame of mind in which he acted. 'He negligently broke a saucer' is not the same kind of expression as 'he inadvertently broke a saucer'. The point of adverb 'inadvertently' is merely to inform us of the agent's psychological state, whereas if we say 'He broke it negligently' we are not merely adding to this an element of blame or reproach, but something quite specific, viz. we are referring to the fact that the agent failed to comply with a standard of conduct with which any ordinary reasonable man could and would have complied: a standard requiring him to take precautions against harm. The word 'negligently', both in legal and non legal contexts, makes an essential reference to an omission to do what is thus required: it is not a flatly descriptive psychological expression like 'his mind was a blank'."
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines 'Rash'as doing something that may not be sensible without first thinking about the possible results.
Elaborating further, in State of H.P. v. Piar Chand, Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2003, decided on 2.6.2003, Himachal Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the meaning of the expression " rashness " and " negligence "
held as follows :
"18. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injury and without knowl- edge that injury would probably be caused. Therefore, to State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 7/11 incur criminal liability, the act must be done with rashness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negli- gence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exer- cise reasonable care and proper precaution imperative to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a individual."
8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J. in these words :
"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In Re : Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. HCR 119)".
Reasons for Decision
20. For proving the guilt of the accused u/s 279/337/338 IPC, it has to be proved the vehicle bearing no. DL-1RD-4077 being the TSR was being driven in a rash and negligent manner on a public way so as to endanger human life and thereafter caused simple injuries to the complainant and grievous injuries to friend namely Binesh. The fact that the offending vehicle no. DL-1RD-4077 was being driven by the accused has been stated that by both PW-3 and PW-4, who are the injured persons. This fact has also not been denied by the accused Madan Lal in his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. He State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 8/11 also did not deny that the accident took place with a motorcycle.
21. The factum of rashness has been substantiated by the oral testimony of PW-3 and PW-4. They both stated that the offending vehicle being driven by the accused was coming from the wrong side and hit their motorcycle from the front when they were crossing the red light on account of signal, having turned green. Both witnesses have corroborated each others testimonies.
22. The fact that injuries were caused to PW Gautamn and PW Binesh has further been substantiated that the MLCs on record which state that the injuries to be simple and grievous respectively.
23. Coupled with this, there are mechanical inspection reports Ex. PW-1/A and PW-1/B, as per which both the vehicles have been damaged from the front side, further substantiating the fact that there was a head-on collision.
24. Thus, it is clear that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the accused.
25. Coupled with the documentary and ocular evidence, there is also statement of the accused dated 15.03.2013 in which he admitted that he was driving the vehicle bearing no. DL-1RD-4077 on 14.02.2007 at 11.30pm, at Aurobindo Marg, Adhchini, T Point Red light where the accident took place with the motorcycle. The fact that the accident took place has not been denied by the accused.
26. It has already been settled by the higher court that the admission of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. can be taken in consideration while deciding the guilt of the accused.
This question has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court in case titled :
State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 9/11
Janki Dass Vs. State
1995CriLJ2175, (1994)ILR Delhi392
In this murder reference the only question of law that arose for consideration was as to whether a admission made under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. can form the basis of conviction. The Court Held that : "The underlying object behind Section 313 is to give an opportunity to the accused to be heard not only on what is prima facie proved against him but on a very circumstance appearing in evidence against him so that he is not condemned unheard. It enables the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence. The answers given by an accused may be taken into consideration in judging not only his innocence but also judging his guilt. There is nothing in the language of Section 313 to suggest that answers given by an accused admitting the evidence or circumstances proved against him, have to be ignored and have not to be taken into consideration for judging his guilt.
The weight to be attached to the statement of an accused made under Section 313 of the Code though cannot be placed in a straight jacket since it has to vary according to the circumstances of each case, yet the legal position seems to be clear that such statements can be taken into consideration in judging not only the innocence but guilt of the accused and admission made in a statement under Section 313 of the Code can be made the basis of conviction".
27. Thus, it is clear that the guilt of the accused u/s 279/337/338 IPC has been duly proved and accused Madan Lal is accordingly, convicted for offences punishable under section 279/337/338 IPC.
State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 10/11 Matter be listed for arguments on the point of sentence on 22.03.2013 at 2.00 P.M. ANNOUNCED IN THE COURT (CHETNA SINGH) ON 15.03.2013 MM-02(SD)/15.03.2013 Certified that this judgment contains 11 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM-02(SD)/15.03.2013
State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 11/11
STATE Vs. Madan Lal
FIR No.179/07
U/s : 279/337/338 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
25.04.2013
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Madan Lal along with LAC Sh. Faheem Alam.
Arguments on sentence advanced.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the convict is a first time offender and has clean antecedents and is a senior citizen.
Hence, it is prayed that he be released on probation of good conduct or after admonishing and leniency be shown to him.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued for maximum punishment, as he states that the offence has been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt and the convict does not deserve any leniency.
Heard.
Aggravating Circumstances:
Facts leading to the conviction of the convict clearly reveal that he had hit the motorcycle of the complainant, thereby causing simple injury to him and grievous injury to Dinesh who was a pillion rider. Thus his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 12/11 2 Mitigating Circumstances:
(1)That the convict is a senior citizen.
(2)That he is a first time offender.
(3) That the trial has been dragged for 6 long years.
Considering all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the convict deserves to be released on probation of good conduct as he is a senior citizen and no purpose would be served in attaching the stigma of conviction with his name.
Thus, in view of all these facts and circumstances, the accused is released on probation of good conduct u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, he is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/ as cost of proceedings u/s 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Fine paid vide receipt no. 503903.
PB/SB stands cancelled. Surety is discharged. Endorsement if any be cancelled. Original documents be returned to the surety.
Copy of this order be given dasti to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM02(South)/25.04.2013
State Vs Madan Lal FIR No. 179/07 13/11