Delhi District Court
Punjab & Haryana In Balraj Singh vs . State Of Punjab Has Held; on 16 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUJ KUMAR SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 03, SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CHALLAN NO. 44270230019
TC no. 396219
TRAFFIC CIRCLE DFC
VEHICLE NO. DL9SBL6591
STATE
VERSUS
Ravi Shankar
S/o Sh. Rajkumar
R/o W 150/40, B212, Indra Ghdhi Camp, Narayana Industrial,
Area, New Delhi28.
DATE OF FILING OF CHALLAN 22.03.2019
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 16.04.2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT 16.04.2019
PLEA OF ACCUSED NOT GUILTY
FINAL ORDER QUA ACCUSED CONVICTED.
JUDGMENT:
1. Ravi Shankar (Accused) was challaned on 21.03.2019 at 12.16 pm at South Ex. He was driving a vehicle bearing no. DL9SBL6591 under the influence of alcohol (the content of which as per the report of the alcometer was found to be 838.03 mg per 100 ml). Therefore, he was challaned under section 185 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as the Act). It is also the allegation of the prosecution Challan No: 44270230019 St v Ravi Shankar that he could not produce the valid insurance certificate and thus he was challaned u/s. 146/196 of the said Act. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that he could not produce the valid DL and thus he was challaned u/s. 3/181 of the said Act. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that he could not produce the valid registration certificate and thus he was challaned u/s. 32/177 of the said Act. It is also the allegation of the prosecution that he was driving the vehicle without helmet and thus he was challaned u/s. 129/177 of the said Act.
2. Thereafter, the Challan was presented before the court.
3. Consequent to the filing of challan, cognizance of the offence under said sections was taken. Notice u/s. 251 Cr. P.C. was served upon the Accused and the same was read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the Accused, prosecution has examined one witness namely SI Anar Singh.
5. PW1 Anar Singh in his examinationinchief deposed as under :
" On 21.3.2019 I was posted as SI in DFC traffic circle. On that day, we were on drunk driving duty at South Ex, Ring Road. At around 12.05 pm accused present in the court today (correctly identified) was coming from Dhaula Kauan and was going towards Moolchand in Scooty two wheeler vehicle bearing no. DL9SBL6591. Ct. Rajkumar stopped the accused on my instructions and Ct. Rajkumar conducted the breath analyzer test on my instruction on the accused. It was found that accused was in drunk condition breath analyzer test was conducted and blood alcohol content was 838.30mg/100mg. Accused was driving his vehicle with all documents except PUC. Challan was issued by me which is Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. The slip of alcohol test which is Ex.PW1/B bears my signature at point A. I was prepared the certificate u/s 65 B certificate which is Ex.PW1/C which bears my signature at point A. Blank air test was conducted on Ct. Rajkumar which is Ex.PW1/D which Challan No: 44270230019 St v Ravi Shankar bears my signature at point A. ."
6. The said witness were duly cross examined by the counsel for the Accused. At the request of Ld. APP for the State, PW Ct. Raj Kumar is dropped from the list of witnesses. Thereafter, PE was closed.
7. Thereafter, statement of Accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C in the manner provided u/s 281 Cr.PC wherein the said accused stated that he did not commit any offence and he has been falsely implicated. The Accused did not avail the opportunity to lead defence evidence and hence the matter reached the stage of final arguments.
8. Final arguments heard and record perused.
9. Ld. APP for the State argued that prosecution witnesses have proved the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and hence Accused should be held guilty. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the Accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was wrongly challaned. It is thus argued that the Accused should be acquitted of all charges.
10. I have heard the submissions of the ld counsel and carefully perused the material on record. The counsel for the accused has submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. It is argued that it is duty of prosecution to prove its case. However, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The story of prosecution is full of contradiction and the material on the record is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore the accused may be Challan No: 44270230019 St v Ravi Shankar given benefit of doubt and he may be acquitted. The ld counsel has put various arguments in support of his claim. I shall deal with all the contentions one by one.
11. The counsel has argued that prosecution has not examined any independent person as a witness to prove its case. PW1 is interested witnesses. Therefore, his testimonies cannot be relied upon the absence of any independent witness to prove the case of the prosecution. The accused may be given the benefit of doubt.
12. In the present case , although no independent witness has been joined . However as per the settled proposition of law the testimony of official witness cannot be discarded simply because no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab has held;
"In case, independent witnesses was available but not joined by investigating officer, the story is not to be ignored. Question is why police official have deposed against the appellant / accused when he had no enmity with the police officials. Statement of police officials without any independent corroboration inspires no confidence, this submission of the defence counsel seems to be not correct one. In case the independent witness is not joined than evidence on file is to be scrutinized with great care and caution. Mere non joining of independent witness is not fatal.
In the present case, the ultimate question is whether the evidence of the official witnesses suffers from any infirmity. The court is under a duty to scrutinize the testimony of official witnesses with great caution and care."
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in Mohd. Altaf Vs. State of NCT Of Delhi, decided on 30.11.2007, has also held that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded only on the basis of the argument that no Challan No: 44270230019 St v Ravi Shankar public person was joined as a witness. Hon'ble Mr. Justice, S.N.Dhingra, while delivering the judgment has held :
" 5. there is no doubt that the place from where the appellants were apprehended was a busy place. However, it is not necessary that if there are persons around on a busy place, they would be ready & willing to join the investigation on the request of police. It has come in the testimony of police official that request was made to public person to join the investigation but they refused to join. I considered that on the ground that no public witness was ready to associate, the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted. In P.P.Beeran Vs. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court observed that the testimony of police official cannot be rejected on the ground that police officials was the sole witness of recovery of opium and the public witnesses who was examined, turned hostile. The Supreme Court observed that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of sub inspector if the other circumstances exist , shall corroborate the testimony.
14. Thus the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded. However court is under duty to carefully scrutinize the testimonies of the witnesses.
15. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, Accused stands convicted under u/s. 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
16. Again the factum that the Accused was driving the vehicle, insurance certificate, registration certificate, DL and driving the vehicle without helmet as stated by PW1 at the time of challan. This fact has stood the test of crossexamination and nothing has come on record to disbelieve the said fact. Thus it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused herein drove the vehicle in question in violation 146/196 MVA, 132/177, 3/181 and 129/177 Act of the said Act.
Challan No: 44270230019 St v Ravi Shankar
17. Previous bail Bond of accused is retained for the purpose of Section 437A for a period of six months. Let the convict be heard on the quantum of sentence. ANUJ Digitally signed by ANUJ KUMAR KUMAR SINGH Date: 2019.04.26 SINGH 23:13:16 +0530 Announced in the open (ANUJ KUMAR SINGH) Court on 16.04.2019 MM / South Distt. Saket / New Delhi.
Challan No: 44270230019 St v Ravi Shankar