Delhi District Court
State vs Mussarraf on 19 October, 2019
FIR No. 449/2015
PS Rajinder Nagar
U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act
State Vs Mussarraf
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIPLAV DABAS
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL03, DELHI
CIS No. 303453/2016
FIR No. 449/2015
PS Rajinder Nagar
U/s 279/337/338 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act
State Vs Mussarraf
Date of Institution of case : 29.06.2016
Date of Judgment : 19.10.2019
JUDGMENT:
a) Date of offence : 28.06.2015 b) Offence complained of : U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act c) Name of Accused, his : Mussarraf parentage & residence S/o Sh.Munvvar R/o House Near Sultan Masjid, Mustafabad, Loni, District Ghaziabad, U.P. d) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted Page No.1/9 FIR No. 449/2015 PS Rajinder Nagar U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act State Vs Mussarraf BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION: Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
1. On 28.06.2015 at about 01:00 a.m, in front of Fire Station Shankar Road, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Rajinder Nagar, accused Mussarraf was found driving vehicle bearing no. HR 38M 8877 without proper fitness certificate in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the said vehicle in aforesaid manner the accused struck it against the wall of the park thereby damaging it and caused simple injury to one person namely Yasin. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the present FIR was registered for offences punishable under Section 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act and after usual investigation chargesheet was filed.
2. The Court took cognizance of the abovesaid offence u/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act and provision of Section 207 Cr.P.C wsa complied. After hearing arguments, as a prime facie case was made out against the accused Mussarraf for offences punishable u/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act, notice was accordingly served upon the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trail.
3. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients of the said Page No.2/9 FIR No. 449/2015 PS Rajinder Nagar U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act State Vs Mussarraf Sections:
a. Section 279 IPC: The accused was driving the vehicle in a public place and that he was driving in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt/injury to any other person.
b. Section 337 IPC : Hurt is caused to any person by an act done by another person and that the act was done so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or personal safety of others.
c. Section 427 IPC : That accused with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to public property or to any person, caused destruction of any property and such mischief caused loss or damage amounting to not less than Rs. 50.
d. Section 56/192 M.V.Act: That the accused was found driving the vehicle without having any valid fitness certificate.
4. To prove the ingredients of the aforesaid Sections, prosecution started examining its witnesses.
5. PW1 SI Rajan Singh deposed that on the intervening night 27/28.06.2015, he was posted at PS Rajinder Nagar and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM, that at about 1:10 AM, he received DD No. 4A which is Ex. PW1/A regarding accident in area PS Rajinder Nagar through duty officer by phone, that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Hotam Singh reached in front of Fire station Shankar Road, New Rajinder Nagar where he came to know that the injured was already Page No.3/9 FIR No. 449/2015 PS Rajinder Nagar U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act State Vs Mussarraf shifted to hospital alongwith driver of the truck, that one truck bearing no. HR38M 7130 (half body truck loaded with bricks) was standing at the spot and the above said truck had hit the wall of the park, that the wall of the park was on damaged condition, that he had taken photographs of the spot from his personal mobile phone, that he had left Ct. Hotam Singh at the spot and he rushed to the RML Hospital, that he collected MLC of injured Yaseen from RML hospital, that Injured Yaseen had refused to give his statement, that accused was present in the RML hospital and he was looking after injured Yaseen, that he came back to spot & that he tried to find eye witness of the accident but same could not be found. PW1 SI Rajan Singh correctly identified the accused present in the Court. Thereafter, he sent Ct. Hotam Singh to PS Rajinder Nagar to collect DD No. 4A, dated 28.06.2015 accordingly he went to PS and collected the above said DD No. and came back to the spot and handed over him the said DD no. 4A, that he prepared rukka Ex. PW1/B and handed it over to Ct. Hotam Singh for the registration of FIR, that he prepared site plan Ex. PW1/C and in the meantime Ct. Hotam Singh reached at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original Rukka and same were handed over to him and that he recorded statement of Ct. Hotam Singh u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
PW1 SI Rajan Singh further deposed that on 29.06.2015, he had gone at the spot and found accused and owner of offending vehicle namely Arif, that truck was unloaded, that he seized the above said truck Ex. PW1/D, that above said truck was shifted to the PS Rajinder Nagar with the help of the accused, that he had served notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex.PW1/E to the owner of the truck namely Arif at PS Rajinder Nagar and he had given reply on the notice that accused was driving the Page No.4/9 FIR No. 449/2015 PS Rajinder Nagar U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act State Vs Mussarraf above said vehicle on the relevant time, that he had seized driving licence Ex. PW1/F, permit Ex. P1 (running into two pages) and insurance paper Ex. P2, that he had arrested accused Mussarraf vide memo Ex. PW1/G and conducted his personal search vide memo and that later on accused was released on police bail.
The witness correctly identified the four photographs of the offending vehicle which he had clicked from his mobile phone. The same are Ex. P3(colly).
This witness was not cross examined by or on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
6. PW Ct. Hotam Singh deposed that on the intervening night 27/28.06.2015, he was posted at PS Rajinder Nagar and on that day he was on emergency duty from 8 PM to 8 AM, that at about 1:10 AM, IO SI Rajan Singh received DD No. 4A Ex. PW1/A regarding accident in area PS Rajinder Nagar through duty officer by phone, that thereafter he alongwith SI Rajan Singh reached in front of Fire station Shankar Road, New Rajinder Nagar where they came to know that the injured was already shifted to hospital alongwith driver of the truck, that one truck bearing no. HR38M7130 (half body truck loaded with bricks) was standing at the spot and the above said truck had hit the wall of the park, that the wall of the park was in damaged condition, that IO had taken photographs of the spot from his personal mobile phone, that IO left for hospital and he remained at the spot, that after sometime, IO came back to spot, that he was sent to PS Rajinder Nagar to collect DD No. 4A, dated 28.06.2015 & accordingly he went to PS and collected the above said DD No. 4A and came back to the spot and handed over to the IO the said DD Page No.5/9 FIR No. 449/2015 PS Rajinder Nagar U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act State Vs Mussarraf No. 4A, that IO prepared rukka and same was handed over to him for the registration of FIR, that he came back at the spot along with copy of FIR and original Rukka and same were handed over to IO and that IO recorded his statement.
The witness correctly identified the four photographs of the offending vehicle which he had clicked from his mobile phone. The same are Ex. P3(colly).
This witness was not cross examined by or on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
7. PW3 ASI Ratan Lal deposed that in July 2015 he was posted at PS Rajinder Nagar and the present case file was marked to him for furhter investigation, that he recorded the statement of the injured Yasin U/s 161 Cr.P.C, that he had collected the result of the MLC of the injured and that he prepared the chargesheet and filed it before the Court.
This witness was not cross examined by or on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
8. During the prosecution evidence, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the Ld. Counsel for accused that the complainant/ star witness Yasin is not traceable despite best efforts as is apparent from the reports mentioned on the processes issued to the said injured through IO / SHO for 20.06.2019 & through DCP concerned for 07.08.2019. It is submitted that there is no other eye witness of the incident and there is no circumstance available on record to prove beyond the Page No.6/9 FIR No. 449/2015 PS Rajinder Nagar U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act State Vs Mussarraf reasonable doubt that the identity of offending vehicle as well as the fact that the offending vehicle was driven by the accused at the time of the accident and that accused was rash or negligent in his conduct which caused injuries to the victim and that the accused damaged the wall intentionally. It is submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution against the accused as remaining witnesses are all police / medical witnesses who are formal in nature and the involvement of accused in the alleged incident as well as the presence of rash or negligent conduct on part of the accused, which is necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused can not be proved at all by the remaining prosecution witnesses.
9. Submission heard on behalf of State and defence. Record perused.
10. Perusal of the record reveals that submissions of the Ld. Counsel for accused are not baseless. Considering the record, the fact that the eye witness PW / Injured Yasin is not traceable despite service through IO /SHO concerned who can establish the identity of offending vehicle as well as the fact that accused was driver of the offending vehicle which was being driven rashly / negligently and that there is no other eye witness of the incident or other circumstance to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the identity of offending vehicle and the element of rashness or negligence in the conduct of accused or any act / omission committed by accused which caused accident resulting in injuries to the victim and that the accused intentionally damaged the wall, which is a necessary element for completion of offences u/s 279, Page No.7/9 FIR No. 449/2015 PS Rajinder Nagar U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act State Vs Mussarraf 337 & 427 IPC, this Court is of the view that no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the prosecution evidence. Hence, the prosecution evidence is closed and recording of statement of accused is also dispensed with as there is no substantially incriminating circumstance available on record.
11. In view of aforesaid discussion and present circumstances, as no substantially incriminating material is available on record, accused Mussarraf, S/o Sh. Munvar is hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 279, 337 & 427 IPC levelled against him.
12. With respect to offence punishable under Section 56/192 M.V.Act, vide a separate statement, accused admits all the allegations levelled against him qua the aforesaid offence.
The accusation for offence u/s 56/192 M.V.Act IPC has been explained to the accused in vernacular but he insists on pleading guilty for the said offence.
Since the plea of guilt is being made by the accused voluntarily and I am satisfied that the plea of guilt is voluntary, without any fear, pressure and coercion, the same is accepted and the accused is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 56/192 M.V.Act.
Submission heard on the point of sentence.
It is submitted by the convict that he belongs to a poor family, that the convict is facing trial since year 2015, that he is the sole bread earner of his family, that he is remorseful of his conduct and requests that a lenient view may be taken.
Page No.8/9 FIR No. 449/2015PS Rajinder Nagar U/s 279/337/427 IPC & 56/192 M.V.Act State Vs Mussarraf Ld. APP on the other hand submits that the convict be sentenced as per law. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, convict is sentenced with a fine of Rs.2,000/ for offence punishable u/s 56/192 M.V.Act. Fine paid.
Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
Fresh bail bonds and surety bonds in compliance of Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C are furnished, considered and accepted.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
VIPLAV Digitally signed
by VIPLAV DABAS
DABAS 18:19:11 +0530
Date: 2019.10.21
Announced in the Open Court (VIPLAV DABAS)
on 19.10.2019 MM03/CENTRAL:DELHI
19.10.2019
Page No.9/9