Delhi District Court
State vs Bal Bhagwan on 30 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS RUCHIKA SINGLA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 04, ROOM NO.212
DWARKA, DELHI
State versus Bal Bhagwan
FIR No. 118/11
PS: Kapashera
U/s-279/337/304A IPC
1. Serial No. of the case : 02405R0276272012
2. Date of commission of offence : 12.07.2011
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Sukhbir Singh, s/o Sh. Dhoop Singh
4. Name of the accused, and his : Bal Bhagwan, s/o Sh. Dharam Singh
parentage & residence r/o H. No. 103, VPO Rajoukri, Delhi.
5. Date of Reserving Judgment : 09.09.2015
6. Date when judgment was : 30.10.2015
pronounced
7. Offence Complained of : Section 279/337/304A IPC
8. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Order : Acquittal
10. Date of Order : 30.10.2015
JUDGMENT
Brief Statement of the reasons for the decision of the case
1. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that on 12.07.2011 at about 1.45 pm at Kapashera Bijwasan Road, near Pushpanjali Farm cut, Bijwasan, New Delhi, the accused was driving a Tata Dumper bearing no. HR-55F-0012 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while so driving, he hit against a Santro car bearing No. PB-11R-9770 and caused simple hurt to the complainant Sh. Sukhbir Singh and caused death of car driver Jaiveer Singh. Hence, the accused is facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 279/337/304A Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
State v. Bal Bhagwan FIR no. 118/11 PS Kapashera Page 1 of 5
2. An FIR was lodged at the behest of Sh. Sukhbir Singh. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 279/337/304A IPC on 02.11.2012. Cognizance was taken and provisions of Section 207, CrPC were complied with. On the basis of prima facie material available on record, a notice under Section 251, CrPC for the offences under Section 279/337/304A IPC was framed against the accused on 20.12.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, the matter was listed for Prosecution Evidence. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. PW1 is Sh. Sukhbir Singh, the complainant. PW2 Sh. Puran Chand is the mechanical inspector, who proved the mechanical inspection reports of the vehicles. PW3 Ct. Yogesh was with the first IO during the investigation of the case. PW4 Sh. Yogender, PW7 Sh. Ashok and PW8 Radhey Shyam are the eye-witnesses. PW5 Sh. Daya Ram and PW6 Sh. Inder Raj Singh both identified the dead body of the deceased. PW9 SI Jagdish proved DD no. 21A, 26A and the FIR. PW10 SI Vijender Kumar is the first IO. PW11 ASI Suraj Pal is the second IO. PW12 Sh. Pawan Kumar is the owner of the offending vehicle. The accused, vide his separate statement under Section 294, CrPC, admitted the MLC No. 111669 and 111647 both dated 12.07.2011 and the postmortem report no. 1107GVJS49 dated 13.07.2011. Same are Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 respectively. Thereafter, the PE was closed vide Order dated 03.06.2015.
4. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, CrPC on 22.06.2015 whereby the accused pleaded false implication. The accused chose to lead defence evidence and wished to produce one Sh. Radhey Shyam in DE. However, the said witness was already examined in PE as PW8. Thereafter, vide separate statement of accused, DE was closed. Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and the matter was reserved for orders.
5. The accused has been charged for the offences u/s 279/304A/337 IPC. I shall deal with each of the offences one by one. Firstly, the prosecution must show that the accused has committed the offence u/s 279 IPC which provides for punishment for rash and negligent driving. Section 279 IPC is as under:-
''Rash driving or riding on a public way- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on an any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to State v. Bal Bhagwan FIR no. 118/11 PS Kapashera Page 2 of 5 be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend one thousand rupees or with both''.
6. To make out the said offence, the prosecution must prove that:-
a) the accused was driving a vehicle on a public way;
b) the accused was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life.
7. The ld. APP has submitted with the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle on the public way is undisputed. The same has been admitted by the accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC. Even otherwise, this fact has been proved by the testimonies of PW1 Sukhbir and PW8 Radhey Shyam, who have deposed in this regard.
8. To prove the second essential ingredient, the ld. APP has again relied upon the statements of PW1 Sukhbir and PW8 Radhey Shyam. It is submitted by the ld. APP that PW1 Sukhbir has deposed that on 12.07.2011, while the deceased was driving his company car, the accused reached at the spot in the offending vehicle from behind and hit his vehicle due to which the truck i.e. the offending vehicle turtled upon the complainant's car. Due to this accident, he received injuries and the deceased Sh. Jaiveer expired. Ld. APP has submitted that PW8 Radhey Shyam has also affirmed these facts on oath. All these three witnesses correctly identified the accused in the Court as the driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was produced in the court and was correctly identified by PW1 Sukhbir. Same is proved as Ex.P1. Hence, the said offence is made out against the accused. Ld. APP has also pointed towards the conduct of the accused. It is stated that as per the prosecution witnesses, the accused ran away from the spot instead of helping of the victims. It is stated by the ld. APP that due to this reason also, the guilt of the accused is apparent. Also, Ld. APP submits that the manner in which the accident occurred speaks volumes of the rash and negligent driving of the accused. It is submitted that the offending vehicle hit the complainant's vehicle from behind and then it turtled over the complainant's vehicle. This reflects that the offending vehicle was being driven in an uncontrollable speed. Hence, the rash and negligent act is manifest.
State v. Bal Bhagwan FIR no. 118/11 PS Kapashera Page 3 of 5
9. Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, has prayed for acquittal of the accused. He has submitted that though the factum of the accident is not disputed, there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the deceased was driving the car in a high speed and in a negligent manner. He was stopping the car suddenly again and again. Then, he would start driving the vehicle in a high speed. The accused overtook his vehicle a couple of times when he had stopped the vehicle but after restarting the vehicle, the deceased would overtake the offending vehicle again. Then, it is stated that the deceased, when he was in front of the offending vehicle, he suddenly took a right turn without indicator due to which the accident occurred. In this regard, Ld. Counsel submits that PW8 Radhey Shyam has supported the defence version. It is submitted that PW8 Radhey Shyam statetd this fact in his examination-in-chief. He was declared hostile by the Ld. APP and was cross-examined by him. Then, again during his cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel, he admitted that there was no negligence on the part of the accused. He further stated that the accused was driving the vehicle at a normal speed of 3-35 kmph. Also, Ld. Counsel submits that two other witnesses who were allegedly the eye-witnesses in the present case viz. PW4 Sh. Yogender and PW7 Sh. Ashok were also declared hostile by the prosecution as they have also not supported the prosecution version. Hence, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the accused may be acquitted in the present case.
10. The accident is admitted by the accused. The only thing which is disputed is the rash and negligent act of the accused. Admittedly, the offending vehicle hit the complainant's vehicle from behind and then turtled over the same. But the same shall by itself not constitute rash and negligent driving. The testimonies of the witnesses in this regard are highly essential. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, two of the eye-witnesses viz. PW4 Sh. Yogender and PW7 Sh. Ashok resiled from their previous statements and did not support the prosecution version. Further, PW8 Radhey Shyam also deposed in support of the defence version that the deceased suddenly took a right turn, without giving indicator due to which the accident occurred. Now, the only witness in support of the prosecution version is PW1 Sukhbir who is also the injured in the present matter. He deposed that on 12.07.2011, while the deceased was driving his company car, the accused reached at the spot in the offending vehicle from behind and hit his vehicle due to which the truck i.e. the offending vehicle turtled upon the complainant's car. Due to this accident, he received injuries and the deceased Sh. Jaiveer expired. He further states that State v. Bal Bhagwan FIR no. 118/11 PS Kapashera Page 4 of 5 the accident was caused due to the negligence of the accused but admitted in his cross- examination that he had not seen the accused driving in a rash and negligent manner. It is not even alleged that the accused was driving the vehicle at a nigh speed. Now, even if it is presumed that the accused was driving at a high speed, the same itself shall not constitute rash and negligent act. The court finds support in this regard from case titled as Abdul Subhan v. State of NCT of Delhi 133 (2006) DLT 562.
11. In this scenario, the court is of the opinion that the prosecution could not really establish that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The court is inclined to give benefit of doubt to the accused. As the offences under Section 337/304A IPC are also based on rash and negligent act of the accused, these offences are also not made out against the accused. Hence, the accused is acquitted from all charges in the present case.
Bail bonds under Section 437A CrPC be furnished on NDOH.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.10.2015 (RUCHIKA SINGLA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04 DWARKA COURTS, DELHI State v. Bal Bhagwan FIR no. 118/11 PS Kapashera Page 5 of 5