Delhi District Court
State vs Raj Kumar Lohia on 13 December, 2024
Page 1 of 12
IN THE COURT OF ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
JMFC-01, SAKET COURT (SOUTH) NEW DELHI.
FIR NO.: 236/2013
U/S: 279/337/338/304A IPC
PS: Mehrauli
STATE
Vs.
RAJ KUMAR LOHIA, S/o Lt. SH. RAMESH CHAND
R/O H. NO. K-428/4, GF, VILLAGE-GHITORNI,
NEW DELHI. ...... ACCUSED
1. Sr. No. of the case : 2033150/2016
2. Date of offence : 28.04.2013
3. Name of the complainant : Mahesh Kr. Madan
4. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
5. Argument heard on : 02.12.2024
6. Date of order : 13.12.2024
7. Final order : Acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated, it is in allegation against the Raj Kumar Lohia ("Accused") that on 28.04.2013 at about 10:30 PM, in front of Naresh General Store near Brij Green Farm, Satbari, New Delhi, accused was driving vehicle bearing registration no DL-12C-1046 ("offending vehicle") in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In furtherance of his act, accused collided offending Digitally signed ASHISH byKUMAR ASHISH MEENA FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia KUMAR Date:
2024.12.13 MEENA 15:01:05 +05'30' Page 2 of 12 vehicle against motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3SBQ- 4663 resulting which Master Blessen and Belssey Abrahem sustained simple injuries. Further, co-passenger of offending vehicle namely Sumender @ Sobi sustained simple injuries, whereas co-passenger Mahesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries. It is also in allegations that the offending vehicle hit pedestrian namely Sanjeev Dutt resulting into death (not amounting to culpable homicide). Thus, the accused is booked under the Section 279/337/338/304A IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO. Consequently, accused was summoned after taking cognizance of offence. The accused was charged u/s 279/337/338/304A IPC and accordingly, the notice was framed against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined eleven witnesses. PW-1 (complainant) Mahesh Kumar Madan has deposed that on 28.04.2013, he alongwith Sominder and Accused were returning from Executive Club after swimming in Scorpio Car. The accused driving the said offending vehicle. When they reached the high way, they noticed there was a bicycle coming from their right side who was trying to take U-turn. In process their car almost hit the man. Thus, in order to save him, accused turned his car as a result it hit the dumper which was on the left-hand side. On collusion, he became unconscious and woke up in the hospital. Thereafter, police met him in the hospital. The witness was duly cross-examined by the accused.
ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2024.12.13 FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia MEENA 15:01:16 +05'30' Page 3 of 12
4. PW-2 Sominder has deposed that on 28.04.2013 he along with accused and Mahesh were returning in offending vehicle. The accused driving the said offending vehicle. When they reached the high way, they noticed there was a bicycle coming from their right side who was trying to take U-turn. In process their car almost hit the man. Thus, in order to save him, accused turned his car as a result it hit the dumper which was on the left-hand side. He became unconscious. He does not remember anything. The police did not record his statement. It is to be noted that the witness was declared hostile for not supporting the prosecution. Thus, PW-2 was cross- examined by Ld. APP for the State as well as by Ld. Counsel for accused.
5. PW-3 Abraham K.M has deposed that on 28.04.2013, he was coming from Satbari Gaon. He stopped his bike in front of Naresh General Store. His children were also sitting on the bike. He went the Naresh General store. While returning, he saw one Scorpio Car came in very high speed and hit his children sitting on the bike resulting which his children sustained injuries. The offending vehicle also hit the truck/container from back side. Thereafter, PCR van took his children to AIIMS Trauma Centre. The MLC of victims are Ex. AD10 and Ex. AD11.
6. PW-9 Blessy K. Abraham D/o Sh. K.M Abraham has deposed that she alongwith her father and brother were going to attend the marriage reception. While returning, her father stopped his motorcycle to fetch water for them. Her father went inside the shop. Suddenly, white color Scorpio car came and hit them from back side. She and her brother sustained injuries. In meanwhile, her father came out of the shop and called the police. The police ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2024.12.13 MEENA 15:01:22 +05'30' Page 4 of 12 took them to the hospital.
7. PW-10 Blessen K Abraham S/o K.M Abraham deposed that he alongwith her sister and father were returning from attending one marriage function. His father stopped the motorcycle to fetch water from the shop. Thus, he went inside the shop. Suddenly, white color Scorpio came and hit them from back side. He and his sister sustained injuries. In meanwhile, her father came out of the shop and called the police. The police took them to the hospital.
8. PW-4 Naveen Dutt Sharma and PW-5 Sudhakar Dutt Sharma are LRs of Deceased namely Sanjeev Dutt Sharma. They have only deposed that they identified the body of deceased.
9. PW-7 SI Ramphal has deposed that he received a call vide DD No. 42A regarding accident. He alongwith Ct. Devender reached at the spot and found that injured persons have been taken to the hospital and accidental vehicle DL-3S-BQ-4663 and offending vehicle DL-12C-1046 were also found at the spot. He left Ct. Devender at the spot and he left for Fortis Hospital. He learnt that injured Mahesh and Sominder are admitted in the said hospital. He collected their MLCs. Thereafter, he went to AIIMS Trauma Centre collected MLCs of two other injured persons. He also received an information regarding one more victim who has been declared brough dead. He returned to the spot and prepared rukka on the statement of complainant Mahesh vide Ex. PW7/A and got present FIR registered through Ct. Devender. Meanwhile, father Blessen and Blessey came to the spot. He prepared site plan as per instance of the complainant vide Ex. PW7/B. He seized the offending vehicle vide Ex, PW6/A. He also seized the accident FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed KUMAR Date:
KUMAR MEENA 2024.12.13 MEENA 15:01:28 +05'30' Page 5 of 12 vehicle vide Ex. PW6/B. Thereafter, he got the dead body of Sanjeev Dutt Sharma verified through family members. He prepared identification memo vide Ex. PW7/C and PW7/D. He handed over the body of deceased to family member. He arrested the accused Raj Kumar Lohia vide Ex. PW6/C. IO seized RC and Insurance of offending vehicle vide Ex. PW7/E. He got both vehicles mechanically inspected. He recorded the statement of witnesses. PW-6 HC Devender has also deposed on the same lines. Both witnesses were duly cross-examined by the accused.
10. PW-8 SI Ved Prakash has deposed that verified the DL of accused but the same was found to be forged. He also verified the RC and insurance of offending vehicle and the same were found to be genuine. He received PM report of deceased Sanjeev Dutt Sharma. He also collected MLC result of the victims. He recorded the statement of witnesses. Thereafter, the accused produced his Driving License and the same was found to be genuine. He filed the supplementary charge-sheet in present matter.
11. On completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s 281 Cr.P.C r/w 313 Cr.P.C, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused, to which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, the accused chose not to lead defence evidence.
12. Final arguments heard. Case file perused.
13. Short point for determination before this court is as under:
ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia KUMAR Date: 2024.12.13 KUMAR MEENA MEENA 15:01:35 +05'30' Page 6 of 12 '' Whether on on 28.04.2013 at about 10:30 PM, in front of Naresh General Store near Brij Green Farm, Satbari, New Delhi, accused was driving vehicle bearing registration no DL-12C-1046 ("offending vehicle") in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. In furtherance of his act, accused collided offending vehicle against motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-3SBQ-4663 resulting which Master Blessen and Belssey Abrahem sustained simple injuries. Further, co-passenger of offending vehicle namely Sumender @ Sobi sustained simple injuries, whereas co-passenger Mahesh Kumar sustained grievous injuries. It is also in allegations that the offending vehicle hit pedestrian namely Sanjeev Dutt resulting into death (not amounting to culpable homicide). Thus, the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC"
14. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the state that the ocular and the documentary evidence on record has proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. APP for the state submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to convict the accused and hence prayed for conviction of accused as per the evidence produced by the prosecution witnesses.
15. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused is innocent and falsely implicated in the present matter. It ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2024.12.13 MEENA 15:01:43 +05'30' Page 7 of 12 submitted that the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the version of prosecution. It is submitted that there is no evidence against the accused person. It is submitted that the accused may be acquitted of all the charges.
16. In the present case accused is charged under Section 279/337/338/304A IPC & Section 187 MV Act. Thus, the prosecution has to prove the following points to bring home the guilt of accused:
a. That the accused was driving the offending vehicle i.e. bearing registration no. DL-12C-1046 at the time of accident i.e. identity of accused.
b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of the accused at a public place.
c. Due to said rash or negligent act, accused collided with offending against motorcycle DL-3SBQ-4663 ' and caused simple injuries to Blessen and Blessey. The accused also caused grievous injuries to co- passenger Sominder and grievous injuries to co- passenger Mahesh Kumar.
d. The accused also cause death not amounting to culpable homicide of Sanjeev Dutt.
17. Before appreciating the evidence on record, it is necessary for prosecution to prove the identity of accused being the driver of the vehicle. In Bal Kishan Vs. State Crl. Rev. P. No 08/2008 dated State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia ASHISH Digitally signed FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2024.12.13 MEENA 15:01:49 +05'30' Page 8 of 12 06.06.2008, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that "In order to prove the case under Section 279/304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove the identity of the accused, that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to rash and negligent driving had caused the death of the deceased."
18. Prosecution and IO of this case has submitted that the accused, on the day of incident, was driving offending vehicle at high speed in a manner so rash and negligent that it endangered the human life and personal safety of others. The accused was driving the offending vehicle, while victim Sominder and complainant Mahesh Kumar was also riding alongwith the accused in the said offending car. In consequence of his alleged negligent and rash act, the accused hit one stationed motorcycle (offended vehicle) resulting into simple injuries to Blessen and Blessey. Thereafter, the accused crashed the vehicle in stationed Truck/Dumper, resulting simple injuries to Sominder and grievous injuries to complainant Mahesh Kumar. It is also in allegation that the accused also hit cyclist Sanjeev Dutt resulting into his death not amounting to culpable homicide.
19. It is not in dispute that the accused was driving the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-12C-1046. Both, the complainant and co-passenger have certified this fact that the accused was driving the offending vehicle. Besides, the accused has also not disputed the said fact. Thus, it is established that the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-12C-1046 was being driven by the accused, which is stated to be offending vehicle, FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2024.12.13 MEENA 15:01:57 +05'30' Page 9 of 12
20. The prosecution has examined the complainant Mahesh Kumar as PW-1. However, he has not supported the version of the prosecution. He has outrightly stated that he along with accused and co-passenger Sominder were coming back from Executive Club after swimming. They suddenly noticed one bicycle coming from their side trying to take U-turn. Thus, in order to save him, the accused took sudden turn and as a result the offending car hit the stationed dumper. Thereafter, the complainant became unconscious and regained his conscious in the hospital. It is to be noted that the witness has not been declared hostile by the then Ld. APP for the State. Further, PW-2 Sominder has also deposed identical facts. However, PW-2 was declared hostile and cross- examined by the then Ld. APP for the State. It is to be noted that during cross-examination, the veracity of the witness has remained unimpeached and consistent. Thus, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant and the co- passenger/victim. These witnesses have not deposed a single fact regarding hitting a cyclist or offended vehicle (Motorcycle). The factum of not being supported by the one of the victims and especially the complainant proves to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
21. The prosecution has examined the other injured persons as PW-9 Blessy & PW-10 Blessen. Both witnesses have stated that their father parked the motorcycle to fetch water from Naresh General Store. Both witnesses were still sitting on the said bike. Suddenly, one white color Scorpio Car hit offended vehicle from back side and as a result both victims sustained simple injuries. Both witnesses have also deposed that there was no traffic on the road. From the statement of PW-9 & PW-10, it is clear that their ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2024.12.13 MEENA 15:02:06 +05'30' Page 10 of 12 father went inside the shop and he has not seen the accident. Since, one vehicle hit motorcycle from back, thus, it is not possible for them to confirm which vehicle hit them from behind. PW-9 is also unsure if the offending vehicle hit the truck. Whereas, the mechanical inspection report suggests frontal damage on the offending vehicle. Further, Scorpio Car is a heavy SUV Car. Generally, if this type of car, while moving at a high speed, hits motorcycle from behind, it is unlikely that such an accident will cause less damage to the vehicle or victims sitting on it will sustain simple injuries. It is to be noted that PW-9 Blessy has only sustained minor scratches. Further, PW-9 & PW-10 seems to be tutored witnesses. Further, the prosecution has examined father of PW-9 & PW-10 namely Abraham K.M as PW-3. He has deposed the similar version. As per his statement, he has witnessed the accident. However, PW-9 & PW-10 have specifically deposed that PW-3 was inside the shop to buy water bottle. PW-3 have also deposed that offended vehicle was coming at a high speed in busy road, however, said facts have been contradicted by his children who stated that there was no traffic on the road. Moreover, PW-3 has stated that the site plan was not prepared at this instance, whereas site plan bears his signature. Thus, such material omission and contradiction in the statement of PW-3 makes his version not reliable.
22. As discussed above, the complainant/PW-1 Mahesh Kumar, PW-2 Victim/Sominder have deposed altogether different version from PW-9 Blessy and PW-10 Blessen. This Court have no reason to question the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2. Further, this Court cannot keep aside the statement of co-passengers to make out the case against the accused only on the basis of the statement of PW-
ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA MEENA 15:02:13 +05'30' 2024.12.13 Page 11 of 12 9 & PW-10. Moreover, PW-3 version seems to be afterthought and improved version. It is also to be noted that none of the witnesses have deposed the fact that accused caused death (not amounting to culpable homicide) of deceased Sanjeev Dutt. In fact, there is no oral or documentary evidence available on record that the accused hit cyclist resulting into cyclist's death. In view of this Court, the IO has failed to collect proper evidence against the alleged wrongdoer. The said lapse and contradictory statement the witnesses prove to be fatal to the case of prosecution.
23. In view of this court, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable. This Court places its reliance on 'Abdul Subhan v. State of NCT of Delhi' reported as 133 (2006) DLT 562 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed that "...In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor"...".
24. Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that the manner in which the investigation has been conducted on the spot, it makes the prosecution version highly doubtful. 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, ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia KUMAR MEENA Date: 2024.12.13 MEENA 15:02:21 +05'30' Page 12 of 12 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.
25. Hence, accused Sh. Raj Kumar Lohia, S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand Lohia stands acquitted of the offence punishable under section 279/337/338/304A IPC, he has been charged with. Ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.12.2024. IT IS CERTIFIED THAT THE PRESENT JUDGMENT RUNS INTO TWELVE PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS SIGNATURE OF THE UNDERSIGNED.
Digitally signed by
ASHISH KUMAR ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
MEENA Date: 2024.12.13
15:02:27 +05'30'
(ASHISH KUMAR MEENA)
JMFC-01/SAKET COURT(SOUTH),
NEW DELHI/ 13.12.2024
FIR No: 236/2013 PS: Mehrauli State Vs. Raj Kumar Lohia