Delhi District Court
State vs . Roshan Lal on 25 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, DISTRICT
NORTH, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Mr. Jitendra Pratap Singh, DJS
State Vs. Roshan Lal
FIR No. 111/10
PS. Bawana
U/s. 279/304A IPC
JUDGMENT
1) SI No. of the case : 5283608/16
2) The date of commission of offence : 13.05.2010
3) The name of the complainant : Sh. Shankar
s/o Sh. Uteem Mehto
4) The name & parentage of accused : Roshan Lal
S/o Sh. Bir Singh
5) Offence involved : 279/304A IPC
6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Acquitted
8) The date of such order : 25.01.2019.
Date of Institution : 08.11.2010
Judgment reserved on : 17.01.2019
Judgment announced on : 25.01.2019
FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 1 of 17
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2010 at about 08.45 AM at the road near round about Sec. 3 & 4, DSIIDC Bawana, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Bawana, the accused Roshan Lal was driving the truck bearing registration no. HR 61A1082 on a public way in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the same, he caused death of one Suresh not amounting to culpable homicide and thus the accused has been sent to face trial for the offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused was consequently summoned. A formal notice of accusation for the offence punishable U/s 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined thirteen witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh. Pardeep Kumar has deposed that on 13.05.2010 while he was driving a TATA 407 vehicle and reached Bada Gol Chakar at Sector3 and 4 Bawana he saw the accused driving the truck bearing FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 2 of 17 no.HR61A1082 in high speed and in a zig zag manner. He saw the said truck hitting a motorcycle from behind causing injuries to its rider. That the accused thereafter drove away from the spot and he had seen the registration number of the truck. He further deposed that a crowd had gathered at the spot but since he was getting delayed in delivery of his consignment he continued towards his destination. That after 23 months of the incident his statement was recorded by the police and that he did not approach the police in between as he was under impression that someone from the crowd gathered would have informed the police about the incident. That upon his identification accused was arrested and personally searched in the PS vide memos Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively. He identified the accused and the offending vehicle in the court. The offending vehicle was Ex. P1.
5. PW2 is Sh. Shankar who deposed that on 13.05.2010 while he was returning from his duty from Sector3 DSIIDC Bawana and reached near Bada Gol Chakar he saw a motorcycle coming from front which was being followed by a truck which had the registration of State of Haryana. That he could see only the initial alphabets HR of the registration number and its complete number was subsequently told to him by the police officials. That in the process of overtaking the motorcycle, the truck hit the same but the rider somehow managed to maintain the balance. That the truck again hit the motorcycle as a result FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 3 of 17 of which the rider came under the rear wheels of the truck. That thereafter the truck driver left the spot but the witness had seen his face in the process. He correctly identified the accused in the court as the driver of the said truck. That thereafter he called the PCR and the police arrived at the spot and took the injured to the hospital. That he narrated the incident to the police and at his instance the site plan was prepared. That his statement Ex.PW2A was subsequently recorded in the factory. He correctly identified the truck Ex.P1 in the court.
6. PW3 Sh. Rajbir deposed that his brother Jai Prakash is the registered owner of the truck bearing no.HR61A1082 which he got released from the court vide superdarinama Ex.PW3/A. He correctly identified the accused as the driver of the said truck Ex.P1.
7. PW4 Sh. Prem Chand had proved the dead body identification memo Ex.PW4/A and the dead body handing over memo Ex.PW4/B.
8. PW5 Sh. Ravinder who is the brother of the deceased has proved the dead body identification memo Ex.PW5/A as well as the handing over memo Ex.PW4/B.
9. PW6 Sh. Jai Prakash who the registered owner of truck FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 4 of 17 bearing no. HR61A1082 at the relevant time had deposed that he received the notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex.PW6/A and made the reply Ex.PW6/B in his handwriting. That he sold the truck to one Sh. Rajbir r/o Bhiwani prior to the incident. That he had executed the deed of SPA Mark A regarding the said transfer of the truck.
10. PW7 SI Bhagwan Devi has proved the FIR Ex. PW7/A and the endorsement Ex. PW7/B on the rukka. That she had deposed regarding the registration of FIR on the basis of rukka sent by IO SI Manoj through Ct. Pankaj.
11. PW8 Ex. Ct. Pankaj Kumar deposed that on 13.05.2010 while he was posted as Constable at PS Bawana he accompanied the IO SI Manoj who had received the information vide DD No.12A. That they went to the Bada Gol Chakar between Sector3 and 4 DSIIDC Bawana and found a male lying dead. That a motorcycle bearing no.DL11SA2818 was also lying in an accidental condition. That the eyewitness Shankar gave his statement to the IO on the basis of which the rukka/tehrir was prepared by the IO and he got the FIR registered in the PS. That after returning to the spot he provided the copy of the FIR to the IO. That IO seized the motorcycle and thereafter on the direction of the IO he got the dead body preserved in the mortuary of the BJRM Hospital.
FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 5 of 17
12. PW9 Retired ASI/Tech. Devender Kumar deposed that on 15.05.2010 on the request of SI Manoj, he inspected the motorcycle no. DL11SA2818 and prepared the report Ex. PW9/A. That on 20.08.2010 on request of SI Deepak he inspected the truck no.HR61A1082 and prepared the report Ex.PW9/B.
13. PW10 Sh. Dharmender has produced the record Ex. PW 10/A from the office of the RTA, Bhiwani with respect to the truck no.HR 61A1082 registered in the name of one Surender.
14. PW11 is IO SI Manoj deposed that on 13.05.2010 while he was posted as SI at PS Bawana, on receipt of DD no.12A he with Ct. Pankaj went to the spot i.e. Bada Gol Chakar Sector3 and 4 and there they found a motorcycle bearing no.DL11SA2818 lying on the road and a person aged 45 years also lying injured. That he recorded the statement Ex.PW2/A of the eyewitness Shankar who was there at the spot, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered through Ct. Pankaj. That he prepared the site plan Ex.PW11/A at the instance of Shankar. That Ct. Pankaj returned from PS and handed over to him the copy of FIR and original rukka. That the deceased victim could not be identified and his body was preserved at BJRM Hospital. That the offending vehicle was also not traceable. That thereafter motorcycle was seized FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 6 of 17 vide memo Ex.PW11/C and was taken to the PS where statement of Ct. Pankaj was recorded. That the supplementary statement of eye witness Shankar was also recorded at the spot. He further deposed that on the next day the deceased victim was identified as Suresh. That on 14.05.2010 he prepared the inquest papers Ex.PW11/B and after the postmortem the dead body was handed over back to the relatives of the deceased. That on 15.05.2010 he made a request Ex. PW11/D for the inspection of the said motorcycle to ASI Devender and then recorded statement of ASI Devender. That he collected the postmortem report and then upon his transfer he handed over the file to the MHC(M).
15. PW12 SI Deepak Purohit deposed that on 18.07.2010 while he was posted as SI at PS Bawana he was handed over the file of the instant case. That on 19.07.2010 he visited the spot with beat staff and there on inquiry he met one Pradeep who stated that he had seen the incident taking place and also informed him about the registration number of the truck as HR61A1082. That he recorded the statement of the said Pradeep and subsequently obtained the details of the owner of the truck i.e. Jai Prakash who informed him that the vehicle was being looked after by one Rajbir. That a letter dated 19.07.2010 Ex.PW12/A was written to the RTO which was replied on 20.07.2010. That on 03.08.2010 he issued a notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex.PW12/B to Rajbir who produced the photocopies of RC, insurance and permit of the truck FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 7 of 17 and he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW12/C. That on 20.08.2010 the said Rajbir arrived at the PS Bawana alongwith the offending vehicle i.e. the abovesaid truck which was seized vide memo Ex. PW12/D. That he also produced the accused Roshan Lal who was questioned by the said witness and upon the identification of the eyewitness Pradeep the accused was arrested in the present case and his DL was seized vide memo Ex. PW12/E. That the vehicle was got mechanically examined on 20.08.2010 by ASI Devender. He correctly identified the accused and the abovesaid truck in the court.
16. PW13 Dr. V.K. Jha has proved the contents of the postmortem report no.520/10 dated 14.05.2010 of the victim Suresh Ex.PW13/A by identifying his handwriting and signature. He deposed that as per the report the cause of death is the combined effect of the hemorrhagic shock and cerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact possible in road traffic accident.
17. Upon completion of P.E., statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 14.01.2019 wherein the accused has abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. Accused has opted not to lead any Defence Evidence.
18. I have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 8 of 17 the record.
19. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
20. In the case of Beda Kanta Phukan v. State of Assam 1992 Cri. L. J. 1197 it was held as under:
"6. To bring home a charge under Section 279, I.P. C. prosecution has to prove not only the fact that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way, but has also to prove that such driving was so rash, or negligent as to endanger human life or to he likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
21. In the instant matter, the case of the prosecution hinges upon the testimony of the two stated eye witnesses namely Sh. Pradeep Kumar and Sh. Shankar who have respectively deposed as the witnesses PW1 and PW2. The witness PW1 had stated that he had seen the incident taking place while he was driving a Tata 407 vehicle from Sec. 1, Bawana towards Sec. 3. That the accused driving the truck no. HR61A1082 in a high speed and in a zigzag manner had hit the FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 9 of 17 motorcycle of the victim leading to the fall of the victim. Thereafter, he drove away but the registration number was seen by the witness. That a crowd gathered at the spot. The witness stated that since he was getting late to deliver the consignment of goods he was carrying he did not stop. That he had not contacted the police regarding the incident believing that somebody else might have done so and that it is only after about 2 3 months of the incident that he had narrated the incident to the police. This witness has correctly identified the accused and the offending vehicle in the court. This witness was crossexamined at length by Ld. Defence counsel.
22. This court considering the testimony of this witness PW1 in detail finds itself unable to act upon the same. Admittedly, the witness seeing the victim sustaining hurt in a road traffic accident instead of helping the victim to provide immediate medical assistance or at the least calling the PCR or an Ambulance for help continued leisurely to perform his routine task as stated by him. The witness has replied that he was in the process of transporting the scaffoldings (sattering material) which is not of the nature of immediate decay. In such circumstances, if the witness had waited for the police to inform the facts of the incident or had he provided immediate assistance to the victim, he would not have sustained any loss by belated supply of the goods he was carrying. Secondly, this PW1 is reported to be the resident of Vill.
FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 10 of 17 Bawana. The incident had taken place on the road near the round about between Sec. 3 & 4, DSIIDC Bawana. There appears no reason for this witness to remain consistently present at the spot of the incident. In these circumstances, the contention of the prosecution that this witness accidentally had met the IO SI Deepak Purohit on 19.07.2010 i.e. about two months after the incident when the IO was inspecting the spot, appears difficult to be believed. In his crossexamination the witness did not state that he was questioned at the spot of the incident by the IO but he states that he was at the Vehicles Stand near Sec.1 DSIIDC when he was enquired by the police officials regarding the incident. There appears a material and significant contradiction between the version of the IO and of this witness regarding their first interaction and the benefit of the same deserves to be given to the accused.
23. The other witness PW2 Shankar had stated that on 13.05.2010 while he was walking to his place of employment at Sec.3, DSIIDC Bawana and reached near Bada Gol Chakkar he saw a motorcycle coming from the front side and it was being followed by a truck. That he could only see that the registration number of the truck which began with the alphabets HR. That the truck hit the motorcycle in the process to overtake it but the motorcycle rider somehow managed to avoid any mishap. That the truck again hit the motorcycle and the rider fell down on the road ultimately coming under the rear wheels of the FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 11 of 17 truck. The witness stated that after the incident the truck driver ran away with his vehicle but his face was clearly seen by the witness. He identified the accused as the driver in the court. That he called the police from his mobile phone which arrived at the spot and took the injured to the hospital. That he narrated the incident and the respective positions of the vehicle to the IO who prepared the site plan at his instance. That subsequently his statement Ex. PW2/A (on the basis of which the rukka was prepared and the FIR was registered) was recorded by the IO in his factory. This witness had also identified the truck bearing registration no. HR61A1082. It is apparent from the testimony of this witness that after the incident he could only see the initial alphabets HR relating to the registration number of the truck. However, his statement Ex. PW2/A mentioned him stating the number as HR1082. In his deposition, the witness stated that the number was informed to him by a police official but the case of the prosecution is silent regarding who this police official was and how he came to know about the registration number. As per the prosecution the site plan Ex. PW11/A was prepared by the initial IO SI Manoj (PW11) at the instance of PW2 Shankar, however, this witness in the crossexamination was unable to tell when and where the plan was prepared by the IO. He admitted the suggestion that it was not prepared in his presence. He stated that the statement Ex. PW2/A was recorded in the factory but as per PW11 it was recorded at the spot. The witness PW2 states in the crossexamination that the statement FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 12 of 17 was recorded between 23 PM in the factory but PW11 SI Manoj states the same to have been recorded at about 10.00 AM at the spot. The prosecution has not explained as to when this witness PW2 was always known to the investigating agency why the accused was not got identified by him prior to his arrest.
24. The other important aspect in the matter is the method and manner in which the investigating agency had reached the truck no. HR 61A1082 and its owners. As seen above, the eye witness Shankar did not provide the complete registration number to the IO. PW11 SI Manoj has also stated that while the case remained with him, the offending vehicle remained untraceable. PW12 SI Deepak Purohit mentions that it was Pradeep (PW1) who had informed him regarding the complete registration number of the offending vehicle upon which he obtained the details of the owner and reached one Jai Prakash. PW12 states that on 19.07.2010 he made a representation Ex. PW12/A to the Regional Transport Authority, Bhiwani seeking the details of the owners of vehicle no. HR61A1082. The reply of the RTA mentions one Jai Prakash s/o Pratap Singh r/o Vill. Matani, Distt. Bhiwani as the owner. This reply is dt. 20.07.2010. Thereafter, IO issued the notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex. PW 6/A to the abovesaid Jai Prakash. The said notice contains the reply of Jai Prakash as well to the effect that on 13.05.2010 accused Roshan Lal was driving the truck. He also replied that on 26.05.2010 he had sold the FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 13 of 17 said vehicle to one Rajbir. In his examination in chief dt. 02.11.2015, the said Jai Prakash while deposing as PW6 had stated that he had sold the vehicle to Rajbir prior to the date of incident. In his cross examination he stated that he could not tell who was driving the vehicle on the day of the incident. He stated that his reply on Ex. PW6/B was forcefully obtained. In the crossexamination, this witness stated that the contents of the reply were incorrect. He failed to identify the accused in the court.
25. The prosecution has also examined the abovesaid purchaser Rajbir s/o Sh. Dularam as the witness PW3. He stated that his brother Jai Prakash is the registered owner of the truck no. HR61A1082 which he had later on got released on superdari vide superdarinama Ex. PW 3/A. That the accused Roshan Lal was the driver on the said truck. The prosecution has not mentioned any fact from which the presence of the abovesaid truck at the spot of the incident at the relevant time could be established. It has also not been explained as to how PW3 Rajbir who is son of Sh. Dularam has stated himself to be the brother of the registered owner PW6 Jai Prakash, who is recorded to be the son of Sh. Pratap Singh and who both were residents of two different villages. Apart from the verbal submissions of the said PW3 that the accused was driving the truck, no document in the form of any contract of employment etc has been placed on record of the case to show that the FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 14 of 17 accused Roshan Lal was working as driver at the relevant time. There has been made no investigation regarding the purpose or cause of the truck being present at the spot of the incident at the relevant time. The IO could have questioned and collected the relevant documents related to the cause or purpose of the presence of the vehicle at the spot of the incident. In his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, the accused had stated that he had left the employment about one and half month prior to the day of incident. The prosecution has conclusively failed to prove that the accused was driving the truck in question on the date of the incident.
26. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled 'Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2007 Cr. L.J 1089' has dealt with the case of the road accidents and the investigation to be carried out in such cases. His Lordship has observed in the said case that in most of the cases, investigation is not found to be carried out in a swift and scientific manner. It was observed that even the site plans which are produced are unsatisfactory as they do not disclose the exact point of impact as well as the tyre's skid marks and the point at which the vehicle came to rest after the collision. The length of tyres skid marks, it was observed, goes a long way in indicating the speed at which the vehicles were traveling and it could enable the court to examine the evidence in a more objective manner instead of facing vague and subjective expressions such as "high speed". It was also observed that in such FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 15 of 17 cases mechanical inspection report are found superficial and cursory as they are unable to point out the extent of damage suffered by the vehicle as the result of the impact or signs of collision such as paint of one vehicle rubbing over the other. Reports should also indicate as to whether the vehicle was mechanically sound or not prior to the impact so as to enable the court to arrive at any conclusion as to whether the collision took place due to human rashness or negligence or mechanical failure beyond human control. His Lordship has further observed that the photographs ought to be taken not only of the vehicle involved in the collision but also of the site and surrounding area in order to discern the exact topography. It was further observed that the prevalent weather conditions and the path of the movement of the vehicles must also be established in the course of the investigation and not be left open to doubt. It was also observed that driver of the vehicles involved must also be subjected to medical test to reveal whether they had consumed any intoxicant. It was concluded that a criminal court would not convict any person merely on the basis of conjectures, assumption and probability.
27. In the present case also in the light of the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, I am unable to form an opinion as to the guilt of the accused as no photographs have been taken during the investigation which could show the topography of the area of the collision nor the skid marks. The site plan Ex. PW11/A as FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 16 of 17 filed is without scale and merely a rough sketch prepared by the IO. The mechanical inspection report Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B also are not helpful in concluding the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused leading to the accident. Furthermore, a conclusive proof of the accused driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner could not be ascertained from the testimony of the eyewitnesses PW1 and PW2. In these circumstances this court does not find any sufficient material to convict the accused. In these circumstances the court finds itself unable to give a verdict of guilty against the accused Roshan Lal.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Roshan Lal is acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 279/304A IPC.
Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed JITENDRA by JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date: SINGH 2019.01.28 13:18:38 +0530 Announced in open court (JITENDRA PRATAP SINGH) on 25th Day of January, 2019 MM5/North/Rohini Courts Delhi FIR No. 111/10, PS Bawana State Vs. Roshan Lal 17 of 17