Delhi District Court
State vs . Jiledhar on 23 April, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. MONA TARDI KERKETTA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08 (SE), SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI STATE Vs. JILEDHAR FIR NO. : 1046/99 P.S. : Lajpat Nagar U.S. : 279/304-A IPC Unique ID No.02403R0028282000 Serial No. 424/02/2000 Date of institution of case : 12.10.2000 Date on which case reserved : 23.04.2012 for judgment Date of judgment : 23.04.2012 JUDGEMENT U/S 350 Cr.PC.: a) Date of offence : 16.12.99 b) Offence complained of : U/s. 279/304A IPC c) Name of accused, his parentage: Jiledhar S/o Sh. Dhanaee R/o Vill.-Khadva, Distt.-Parasram Pur, District-Basti, U.P. Present Add.-T-87, Jang Pura, Bhogal Road, Bhogal, New Delhi. d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty e) Final order : Acquitted Counsels for the Parties: For the State : Ms. Mayank Tripathi For the Accused : Sh. Ajay Kumar Mayer BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:- 1.
In brief, the case of Prosecution is that on 16.12.99 at about 6.30 pm in front of I-40, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi falling within the jurisdiction of PS-Lajpat Nagar, accused was driving vehicle bearing no. DL1L8793 in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and hit against Sh. Ram Milan and caused his death, an act FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 1/12 not amounting to culpable homicide and thereby by committed an offence punishable under section 279/304A IPC. Accused was arrested, but released on police bail for being involved in bailable offence. Later on he was released on court bail also.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court. Cognizance of the offence was taken and he was summoned to face the trial for the offence allegedly committed by him. Notice for the offence punishable U/s. 279/304-A IPC was framed against accused on 27.04.2001, accusation was explained to which he pleaded not guilty & claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate its version, prosecution filed the list of as many as Eleven witnesses but examined Ten in all.
4. PW1 ASI Pushpa Yadav, Duty Officer, proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW1/A, bearing her signatures at point A. During cross examination she denied that she had not received any rukka and recorded any FIR . She also denied that she was deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
5. PW2 SI Nand Lal Dua, Mechanical Inspector, proved his detailed report vide Ex. PW2/A, bearing his signatures at point A.
6. PW3 Sh. Nanku deposed that on 16.12.99 in the morning his brother Ram Milan was going to toilet. At about 06.30 am, when he reached in front of Bata show room at Veer Savarkar Marg, one DCM Toyota bearing Registration no. 8793 came at very high speed from Rampool side and hit his brother from left side, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. He deposed that said car was being driven at a very high speed by the accused, who was driving the said vehicle on wrong side and hit his brother. He was subjected to cross examination for resiling from his previous statement.
FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 2/12 During cross-examination by Ld. Prosecutor, he deposed that DCM Toyota bearing no.DL1L8793 was coming in rash and negligent manner and hit his brother. He also deposed that After accident, police reached at spot and removed his brother to AIIMS hospital
7. During cross examination by defence counsel, he deposed that he had studied up to 6th standard and he was living at Village-Rampur, U.P. Prior to this, he had come to Delhi in 1995, when he used to work at Central Market Lajpat Nagar at Mehta Jewellers as helper. He worked there for one year and thereafter he went to his village and after that he came to Delhi now. He did not know, if his brother died due to septic in his injuries received in accident. He further deposed that deceased used to earn Rs. 2300/- per month from Jagdish Morning store. The store used to be opened at 05.00 am and closed at 10.00 pm. He admitted that MTNL boxes were fixed in front of Jagdish Morning Store and on standing in front of Jagdish Store, the same was not visible due to MTNL Boxes. He also admitted that when one stands in front of Jagdish Morning store, one cannot see things in front of the shop due to MTNL boxes. He also admitted that he did not meet the IO regarding this case. He also admitted that he came to know that he was cited as a witness in the present case only when he received notice from the Court and prior to this, he did not know anything about this case. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He was re examined by the Ld. Prosecutor due to some discrepancy in his statement. During re examination, he stated that his statement that he had seen the accident with his own eyes was correct. During further cross examination, he deposed that he could not tell how many persons were present at spot at the time of accident. He admitted that he was not in Delhi when his brother died as no one was present in village to look after his old aged parents and that his brother remained in hospital for about two months in Safdarjung Hospital. He denied that he was not present at the spot and that is why he did not inform the police or removed the injured to the hospital. He could not tell the names FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 3/12 and addresses of persons, who were gathered at the spot.
8. PW4 Ct. Bhudev deposed that on the intervening night of 15-16.12.99, he was on emergency duty along with HC Virender Singh. On that day at about 06.30 am, on receiving DD No. 26A regarding accident, he along with IO reached at spot and found one DCM Toyota bearing No. DL1L8793 in accidental condition. He remained at spot while IO on receiving information, reached AIIMS hospital. At about 09.00 am, IO returned and gave rukka to him for registration of FIR, which he brought to PS Lajpat Nagar and after the registration of FIR, he returned to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO. The offending vehicle was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/A and accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/B and personal search of accused was taken vide memo Ex. PW4/C and driving licence of accused was also seized vide memo Ex. PW4/D, bearing his signatures at points A. He also identified the accused.
9. During cross examination, PW4 deposed that IO received DD no. 26A in the PS and spot was hardly 10 minutes walking distance away from PS. He deposed that he could not say, if telephone boxes were fixed in front of Jagdish Morning Store. He admitted that at the time of incident there was fog. He also admitted that 5-7 persons present at the spot but he could not tell their name as they refused to disclose. He also admitted that IO did not gave any notice to those persons, who refused to join the investigation. IO received information from PS that injured was shifted to AIIMS at about 09.00 am. He and IO did not receive any information regarding above said accident between 6.40 to 09.00 am. He deposed that IO returned from AIIMS hospital to spot at about 10 am. He returned the spot after registration of FIR at about 10.30 am. Surety of accused reached at spot and accused was released on bail. The vehicle was seized and deposited in Malkhana. Except above, nothing was done in his presence at the spot. Other witnesses also signed on the memos after he signed the same. He did not remember the other FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 4/12 memos, which he signed but he had signed 3-4 papers. He denied that he did not join the investigation of this case along with IO or that he signed the memos at the PS at the asking of IO. He also denied that he was deposing falsely.
10. PW5 Sh. Shankar Pal, MRT, had brought the summoned record of deceased. He proved MLC No. 115366/99 Dt. 16.4.99, prepared by Dr. Sanjiv Chopra vide Ex. PW5/A, bearing the signatures of Dr. Sanjeev at point A. During cross examination he admitted that there was one special Branch at AIIMS Hospital, which kept the details of Doctors working in the hospital. He admitted that he did not make any effort to find out the present whereabouts of Dr. Sanjiv Chopra. He deposed that he was working as Record Clerk at AIIMS from 1988. He admitted that the above said MLC was not prepared in his presence and he had no personal knowledge about the contents of MLC.
11. PW6 HC Suresh Kumar deposed that on 16.12.99, he recorded the DD entry he did not recollect its number. He again said 26 and 27 number. He could not produce the original as the same had been destroyed by the office order vide Mark A. The copy of said DD Ex PW6/A and B was on record, bearing his signatures at point A.
12. PW7 Retired SI Jagdish Prasad deposed that on 23.02.2000, he received DD No. 7A Mark A. On 24.02.2000, he got conducted postmortem of deceased at Safdarjung Hospital vide his application Ex. PW7/A, bearing his signatures at point A. After postmortem, he handed over the dead body to its relatives after identification vide identification memos Ex. PW7/B and PW7/C, bearing his signatures at point A. He also obtained postmortem report from hospital and handed over the same to IO.
13. PW8 HC Hari Ram deposed that on 23.02.2000, he recorded DD No. 6, copy of which was then exhibited PW8/A bearing his signatures at FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 5/12 point A. The original record was destroyed as per rules by the order of competent authority. The copy of DD No. 36 B Dated 02.3.07 was then marked as Mark X1 regarding destruction of records.
14. PW9 Dr. Alexander F. Khakha deposed that on 24.02.2000, he had conducted the postmortem examination of body of deceased Ram Milan S/o Sh. Dhoda, who was brought with alleged history of road side accident and was declared dead on 22.02.2000 at 03.35 pm. On examination, it was found that he had sustained five external injuries and internal injuries. In his opinion, death was due to septicemia caused by multiple injuries mentioned in the report. All the injuries were consistent to road side accident. The time since death was approximately 43 hours. The postmortem report was in his handwriting, which was Ex.PW9/A, bearing his signatures at point A. During cross examination, he was asked if Septicemia could occur due to the carelessness of patient after accident, to which he replied that carelessness of patient was one of the causes, which could lead to septicemia in a case of road side accident, he also stated that In a road side accident, septicemia could cause even if the best treatment and care was given to patient. He admitted that death in this case was due to septicemia, which was consistent to injuries caused in a road side accident. He denied that patient was not provided proper treatment or care or medication, because of which septicemia occurred and it resulted into the death of patient.
15. PW10 ASI Virender Singh deposed that on 16.12.99, he was on emergency duty from 08.00 pm to 08.00 am. At around 07.05 pm, he received a call regarding DD No. 26A. After receiving the same, he along with Ct. Bhudev went to spot and found offending vehicle i.e. DCM Toyota bearing register no. DL1L8793 and driver. Thereafter, he received DD No, 27-A regarding the admission of injured at AIIMS Hospital by PCR Van. He left Ct. Bhudev at the spot and reached at AIIMS Hospital. There he found injured Ram Milan admitted in the hospital vide MLC no. 115366/99. He FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 6/12 recorded the statement of injured after doctor declared him fit for statement vide memo Ex. PW10/A, bearing his thumb impression at point A. Eye witness of accident namely Nanku was also present at the hospital. Thereafter, he left for the spot along with Nanku. He reached at the spot and endorsed rukka Ex. PW10/B, bearing his signatures at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Bhudev for registration of FIR. He also prepared site plan vide Ex. PW10/C on the instance of eye witness Nanku, bearing his signatures at point A. Ct. Bhudev reached at spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him.
16. He further deposed that he also seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A, bearing his signatures at point B. He arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex. PW4/B and C, bearing his signatures at points B. He also seized the DL of accused vide memo Ex. PW4/B, bearing his signatures at point B. Accused was released on police bail vide bond Ex. PW10/D, bearing his signatures at points A. Case property was deposited in Malkhana. He got the mechanical inspection done of offending vehicle. On 23.02.2000 he received information regarding death of injured Ram Milan. SI Jagdish Prasad got the Postmortem of deceased done. Section 304-A IPC was added in the charge sheet due to death of injured. SI Jagdish Prasad handed over the PM report to him. He also recorded the statements of concerned witnesses U/s. 161 CrPC. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet before the Court. He also identified the accused and case property was not disputed.
17. During cross examination he admitted that statement of deceased and endorsement Ex. PW10/B did not bear the name of Nanku. He also admitted that he had not mentioned the place in the site plan, from where the alleged eye witnesses Nanku had seen the accident. He also admitted that memos i.e. seizure memo vide Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/A, personal search memo of accused Ex. PW4/C, seizure memo of DL FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 7/12 Ex. PW4/D, notice of arrest of accused vide Ex. PW4/B did not bear the signatures of alleged eyewitness Nanku. He also admitted that alleged eye witness Nanku was not named in the column of relative or friend. He also admitted that in the statement of HC Tejpal Singh (PCR Official), name of eyewitness Nanku was not recorded. He could not say how was the weather at the time of accident as he had reached at the spot at about 7.10 am and at that time, the weather was clean. He denied that Nanku was cited as planted eyewitness after the death of deceased Ram Milan due to accident.
18. He also admitted that he did not serve the notice U/s. 133 MV Act to the owner of offending vehicle as the accused was caught at the spot after the accident. He also admitted that he had not recorded the statement of any public witness to the fact that accused was apprehended and handed over to police. He admitted that he did not obtain the signatures of any public person to this fact on the seizure memo. He denied that the alleged witness Nanku was not available in Delhi at the time of accident. He admitted that he did not get the judicial TIP of accused conducted but stated that eye witness Nanku had identified the accused on being caught at the spot only. He denied that accused was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and alleged eye witness caught the accused at the spot. He also denied that he falsely implicated the accused in connivance of owner of offending vehicle. He also denied that Nanku, was not present in the hospital. He also denied that he along with Nanku had not gone to the spot and prepared site plan at his instance. He also denied that he was deposing falsely.
19. Court also examined Sh. Surender Gupta as court witness, who deposed that he was the registered owner of Tempo make DCM Toyota bearing registration no. DL1L8793, which was released to him on Superdari vide Superdarinama Ex CW1/A, bearing his signatures at point A.
20. Thereafter no other Prosecution Witness was left to be examined FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 8/12 hence Prosecution Evidence was closed. Statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 CrPC, wherein entire incrimanting circumstances appearing on record was put to him, to which he denied as false and incorrect and stated that he was falsely implicated by the police at the instance of owner of vehicle. However he did not prefer to lead evidence in his defence.
21. During the course of final arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that PW3 alleged eyewitness is planted witness and there are various discrepancies in his testimony, which clearly prove that he was not present at the spot on the date of accident and he was introduced later on during investigation by the IO to prove the case against accused but factually there was no eye witness of the accident. He further submitted that accused was not apprehended at the spot and falsely implicated in this case later on at the instance of owner. The Ld. Defence Counsel also argued that Judicial TIP of accused was not conducted by the IO though it was important to prove the identity of accused. He has also pointed out towards many discrepancies appearing in the testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses.
22. Ld. Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that eyewitness PW3 has correctly identified the accused in court and categorically stated that accident occurred due to fault of accused and all other corroborating evidence have been brought on record to prove the guilt of accused.
23. The court has heard the submissions of both sides and also gone through the entire record including the testimonies of witnesses. After appreciating the evidence, court has no hesitation in holding that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Court has found force in the submissions of Defence Counsel. The alleged eye-witness namely Nanku seems to be a planted witness. Various discrepancies can be seen in his testimony. Though he has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the time of incident he was present at spot and accused had hit his FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 9/12 deceased brother while driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. But in his cross-examination, he has stated that he was working at his village and prior to incident he had come Delhi only in 1995 when he used to work as Helper at Central Market with Mehta Jewellers, where he worked for about one year and then went to his village to look after his old aged parents and never came to Delhi thereafter. It is seen that he has also admitted that he did not meet IO regarding investigation of this case and he came to know that he has been cited as one of the witnesses in this case only after receiving summons from the court. He has also admitted that before receiving summons he did not know anything about the case. At the same time, in his re examination he has admitted that his statement that he had seen the accident with his own eyes was correct. It is further seen that Ld. Defence Counsel has put suggestions that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident and that is why he did not inform the police about the accident and also did not take the injured to hospital to which he denied for obvious reasons and hence no reliance can not be placed upon the testimony of this witness. On the one hand he is stating that he had seen the accident with his own eyes, on the other hand he is also admitting that he did not know anything about the case and IO never met him for investigation purpose at any point of time prior to receiving summons from the court.
24. It is also notable that PW4 Ct. Bhudev and PW10 HC Virender had reached at spot on receiving information regarding the accident. PW10 has stated that Eye-witness Nanku met him at Hospital, where he recorded his statement. Thereafter they reached at spot and at his instance IO prepared Site Plan. But interestingly PW4 Ct. Bhudev has not even whispered about the presence of eyewitness Nanku in his deposition.
25. The testimony of PW10 further proves that alleged eyewitness is a planted witness and was not present at spot at the time of accident. He has stated that he met eye-witness Nanku at the hospital, with whom he FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 10/12 left for spot and also prepared site plan at his instance but during cross- examination by defence counsel, he has admitted that statement of deceased and endorsement Ex. PW10/B does not bear the name and signatures of Nanku though he has been shown as brother of deceased and an eye- witness but none of the memos prepared during investigation bear the name and signatures of Nanku. In fact PW10 has admitted that seizure memo vide Ex. PW4/A, Ex. PW6/A, Ex. PW6/A, Personal Search memo of accused Ex. PW4/C, Seizure memo of DL Ex. PW4/D, Notice of arrest of accused Ex. PW4/B do not bear the signatures of Nanku. PW10 has also admitted that he has not mentioned the place in the site plan, from where the alleged eye witnesses Nanku saw the accident. He has also admitted that the name of Nanku is not appearing in the column of relative or friend and even in the statement of HC Tejpal Singh (PCR Official), name of Nanku is not mentioned. Also name of Nanku is not appearing in the statement Ex PW10/A of deceased Ram Milan. PW Nanku in his deposition has nowhere stated that he made a PCR call or took his injured brother to hospital. The alleged eye witness clearly seems to be planted witnesses, which was roped in later on after the lodging of FIR only to make the case against accused. The chain of circumstantial evidence and the oral evidence of police witnesses discussed above suggest that eye witness was not present at the spot on the date of accident. Hence, it can not be said that accused was the same person who was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident in rash and negligent manner and hit against the injured, who later on died.
26. Ld. counsel for accused relied upon Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Dharampal Vs. State 2010(1)JCC104 (u/s 279 and 304-A IPC), in which the Hon'ble High Court has held after relying upon case titled Kanan and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala AIR1979 SC 1127, that when the eye witness does not know the accused and had seen the accused only for a fleeting glance and no judicial TIP had been conducted and the witness identifies accused for the first time in court during evidence, such FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 11/12 identification is useless piece of evidence and reliance can not be placed upon such identification and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
27. Discussions on the testimonies of remaining witnesses would be not of much relevance as they are formal witnesses and have been involved in investigation of the case.
28. In view of foregoing discussions, this court is of opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused. Hence he is acquitted from the charge framed u/s 279 and 304-A IPC. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced In the Open (MONA TARDI KERKETTA)
Court Today On 23.04.2012 Metropolitan Magistrate-08 (SE)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 1046/99, PS G.K.-1, State Vs. Jiledhar 12/12