Delhi District Court
Rakesh Giri vs The State on 17 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAL SINGH, ASJ02, NEW DELHI
DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Case ID No. 02403R0183352009
Criminal Revision No. 02/11
Rakesh Giri,
S/o Late Shri Harvir Giri,
R/o 1/16, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi. .......Petitioner
versus
The State
5, Shamnath Marg,
New Delhi. .......Respondent
Date of institution of the case : 07.07.2009
Date when the case reserved for Order : 02.11.2011
Date of announcement of Order : 17.11.2011
ORDER
The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.03.2009 passed by the Ld. MM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in the FIR No. 64/06 titled as State vs. Sunil Kumar, whereby the Ld. Trial Court has dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C read with section 173 (8) Cr.P.C of the CR No. 2/11 1/9 petitioner/revisionist for directing further investigation in the above said FIR No. 64/06.
Brief facts of the case, as alleged by the petitioner/revisionist in the revision petition are that Sh. Harvir Giri father of the petitioner/revisionist died under mysterious circumstances on 19.04.2006 and inspite of the fact that the petitioner regularly pursued the matter with the Investigating Officer and pointing out factual position, the case was not properly investigated. It is further averred that there are several loopholes in the investigation in FIR No. 64/06 registered in PS Chanakyapuri. It is further averred that on 19.04.06 Sh. Harvir Giri left homes to go to his School at Chanakyapuri and subsequently phone call was received by the petitioner intimating that Sh. Harvir Giri was admitted in Sir Gangaram Hospital and reaching where he was found in unconscious condition and subsequently Harvir Giri expired on the same day. It is alleged in the revision petition that the police registered a case u/s 279/304A IPC, although as per the contents of the FIR there were no circumstances whatsoever to treat the case one of an accident. It is also averred that the petitioner/revisionist was not satisfied with the investigation under taken by the police as entire investigation was misdirected, vital pieces of evidences were destroyed by the police officials, statement of important witnesses were not recorded, the postmortem report was not at all in consonance with CR No. 2/11 2/9 the report of CT scan and CT scan report was not filed with the charge sheet and the same was filed only after directions by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a writ petition filed by the petitioner/revisionist.
The petitioner/revisionist preferred an application before the Ld. Trial Court on 23.12.2007, praying for further investigation in the matter and the said application had been dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court dated 28.03.09.
I have heard the arguments on behalf of petitioner/revisionist as well as on behalf of state/respondent. Ld. counsel for the petitioner/revisionist submitted that IO had stated in the challan that in the hospital no eye witness was found, however, in the statement of witness Sunil Shiv Hare , he stated that he was present in the hospital. He further argued that police had not placed on record the disclosure statements of accused Sunil Shiv Hare , s/o Ram Avtar. He submitted that in the disclosure statement accused stated that he was not having licence and documents but during the investigation he produced the license. He further argued that accused is resident of Bhind, M.P but his licence is of U.P. and regarding this no proper investigation was carried out by the police. He submitted that in the status report filed by the police it has mentioned that TSR collided with truck, however, in disclosure statement of accused it is stated that TSR collided with Qualis Vehicle but the main witness Sunil Shiv Hare S/o Sh. Dhruv CR No. 2/11 3/9 Shiv Hare stated that TSR collided with Maruti Van. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/revisionist submitted that three different vehicles came into picture in the present case, which creates strong doubts about the accident itself. Ld. Counsel argued that photographs taken by the IO is not on record and it is not with challan. However, the petitioner/revisionist has filed photographs of the TSR (Auto) and the TSR was damaged from middle and right side but deceased suffered injuries on the left side. He further submitted that Dr. Naveen Talwar's statement was recorded after five days though Dr. Naveen Talwar brought the injured to the Hospital and he was available in the Hospital. Ld. Counsel argued that as per the investigation of the police the prime witness Sunil, Shiv Hare and accused Sunil Kumar are close relatives and hence investigation is doubtful. He further argued that there were three persons in the TSR driven by accused Sunil Kumar. Accused received minor injuries and the witness Sunil Shiv Hare did not received any injury, however, third passenger i.e. Harvir Giri received fatal injuries and succumbed to his injuries in the Hospital, therefore, it is highly improbable that one receives fatal injuries and other receives minor injuries and third person did not receives any injury. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/revisionist relied upon the opinion/report dated 26.04.07 by Dr. K.L. Sharma.
On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that investigation in CR No. 2/11 4/9 the present case had been conducted fairly. He further submitted that the caste name of accused and prime witness are the same as both having caste name of Shiv Hare and hence if there is any confusion in the names of accused and the main witness that is due to their caste name and the prosecution has reasonably explained this fact and removed the confusion if any regarding the names of the accused and main witness.
I have heard the arguments and gone through the records of the case and also perused the file.
On 19.04.2006, SI, C.L. Meena received DD No. 7/A, stating therein that at about 3.25 pm, D53 operator had informed that near Budha Garden a vehicle hit a TSR and the injured were taken to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. On this, SI, C.L. Meena went to the spot and found one TSR bearing no. DL1RF5046 and its right side middle portion was damaged alongwith its roof. At that time, no eye witness was found present there and injured were shifted to the Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. IO, SI C.L. Meena reached Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Both the injured were brought to the hospital by Dr. Naveen Talwar. At that time both the injured were unfit for statement. Thereafter, Sh. Arun Giri met SI, C.L. Meena and informed him that Harvir Giri is his father. IO again went back to the spot and got the FIR registered. He had also taken photographs and recorded the statement of witnesses u/s CR No. 2/11 5/9 161 Cr. P.C. Injured Harvir Giri was expired on the same day and thereafter, his postmortem was conducted on the next day. Thereafter, IO went to AIIMS Hospital and Safdurjung Hospital to find the other injured and found that other injured was discharged from Safdurjung Hospital and left for his home at Sangam Vihar. The name of the other injured was revealed as Sunil Kumar, s/o Ram Avtar. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that one other person namely, Sunil Shiv Hare, S/o Dhruv Shiv Hare, was also sitting in the said TSR, who did not receive any injury in the accident. The statement of Sunil Shiv Hare, s/o Dhruv Shiv Hare was recorded by the police. He stated that on 19.04.2006, he alongwith his neighbour Sunil, s/o Ram Avtar went in TSR, bearing no. DL1RF5046 and Sunil had picked up many passengers from different places and he was sitting on the left side of the driving seat. At about 2.45 pm, one passenger took TSR (auto riksha) from Patel Nagar to Chankyapuri and accused was driving the TSR at a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner and in the meantime a Maruti Van overtook the TSR and TSR collided with the Maruti Van and due to that the TSR overturned from the left side. The driver of the Maruti Van, ran away from the spot. The witness Sunil Shiv Hare S/o Sh. Dhruv Shiv Hare stated in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that accident was caused due to the rash and negligent manner of driving of Sunil Shiv Hare S/o Sh. Ram Avtar CR No. 2/11 6/9 Shiv Hare.
Petitioner/revisionist Rakesh Giri, who is the son of the deceased was not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the IO and he filed an application for further investigation. The Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 28.03.2009.
The contention of the petitioner/revisionist that Sunil Shiv Hare (witness) was traveling in the TSR in question at the time of incident, but he did not suffer any injury is quite unbelievable when the entire TSR allegedly overturned as a result of accident, is untenable. It is not necessary that in an accident every person sitting on the vehicle should necessarily receive injuries. There is also no force in the contention of the petitioner/revisionist that the name of Sunil Shiv Hare had been mentioned instead of Sunil Kumar at several places interchangeably, merely to mislead. It has been revealed that the caste name of both the accused and the witness are Shiv Hare, therefore, the contention of Ld. counsel that the name of Sunil Shiv Hare has been used interchangeably is not sustainable. The prosecution has satisfactorily explained that caste name of accused as well as the main witness are same as they both use Shiv Hare as their caste name. Further, there is no force in the contention of the Ld. counsel for the petitioner/revisionist that accused is a resident of Bhind, M.P, but his driving licence is of U.P., which creates doubt about the driving licence CR No. 2/11 7/9 itself. There is no bar that a person of one state cannot obtain the valid driving licence of other state. Moreover, accused Sunil Shiv Hare, s/o Ram Avtar Singh was having a driving licence.
Further allegation that the TSR was damaged from the right side, as per the FIR, but as per the postmortem report deceased Harvir Giri had not sustained any injury on the right side, is also not sustainable. It is not necessary in an accident case that a person gets injury on the same side, as on the side the damage was caused to the vehicle. In an accident case, one can receive injuries anywhere and there is no set pattern that one should receive injuries on the particular location of the body. Moreover, injuries received by the persons in an accident case depends upon the physical strength, age and vulnerability of the person. There is no standard criteria that a person must receive injuries on the same side to which side the vehicle was got damaged. Therefore, contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that the deceased must receive injuries on the same side to the side which vehicle was damaged is without merit hence not sustainable. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/revisionist relied upon the report/opinion of Dr. K. L. Sharma. I have gone through the report/opinion of Dr. K.L Sharma as well as the postmortem report. There is no reason to doubt the postmortem report in the absence of any cogent evidence to discredit the postmortem report. The opinion of Dr. K.L. Sharma that CR No. 2/11 8/9 deceased Harvir Giri's head injuries and brain injuries are limited to the left side only, hence injuries sustained is not possible in road side accident is also not tenable, because as discussed above, in an accident there is no prescribed standard pattern that one should necessarily receive injuries on the certain part of the body. There is also no force in the allegation of the petitioner/revisionist that postmortem report does not match to the CT Scan report and postmortem report is a procured document. Ld. Trial Court has passed a detailed order touching every aspect of the case and found that there was no ground for giving directions for further investigation in the matter.
Therefore, as a sequel of above discussion I am of the considered view that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by Ld. Trial Court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Trial court record be sent back alongwith the copy of this order. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (LAL SINGH)
on 17th November, 2011 ASJ02, PHC/ND
17.11.2011
CR No. 2/11 9/9