Delhi District Court
State vs . Rakesh Kumar Fir No.188/13 on 29 June, 2019
State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13
IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-06, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State vs. Rakesh Kumar
FIR No.188/13
U/sec. 279/304-A IPC
PS: Mundka
Date of institution of the case: 27.08.2014
Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved
Date on which judgment is delivered: 29.06.2019
CR Case No.60074/16
JUDGMENT
a) Sr. No. of the case : 296/2/14 b) Date of commission of the offence : 04.09.2013 c) Name of the complainant : ASI Harpal Singh
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Naider Singh R/o Village Ladrawan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar, Haryana.
e) Offence complained of : Sec. 279/304-A IPC f) Offence charged of : Sec. 279/304-A IPC g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty h) Final order : Acquitted Page No.1 of 17 State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 i) Date of such order : 29.06.2019 j) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
One person namely Dheeraj Kumar was injured on 04.09.2013 in a motor vehicle collision. He was driving a Wagon R car, which collided with another motor vehicle i.e. the Dumper, on the road near Sai Baba Mandir. The driver of commercial motor vehicle was, reportedly, the sole cause of the collision. Driver of the car sustained serious bodily injuries, as a result of the collision, including severe head injury. He was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital for medical treatment by the PCR Van.
With regard to the aforesaid accident, information was recorded vide DD No. 38- A/Ex.PW6/A in the police station and the matter was entrusted to ASI Harpal Singh for necessary action. Thereafter, he along with Constable Pradeep rushed to the spot, however, no eye witness was found at the spot. He came to know that the injured had already been removed to the hospital by PCR van. Thereafter, he went to the hospital but no eye witness was found in the hospital. He collected the MLC of injured namely Dheeraj Kumar. As per the MLC, injured was "unfit for statement". Thereafter, he came back to the spot and prepared the rukka on the DD Entry and on the basis whereof, present FIR/Ex.PW3/B was registered at police station Mundka under sections 279/337 IPC.
On 05.09.2013 at about 02:20 a.m., injured Dheeraj Kumar succumbed to injuries and a DD Entry 9-A to this effect was recorded at the police station Mundka. Thereafter, section 304-A IPC was added. On 05.09.2013, after post-mortem, the dead body of deceased Dheeraj Kumar was handed over to his family members and statement of his brother namely Chander Kant/Ex.PW6/F to this effect was recorded.
On the next day, IO recorded the statement of Chander Kant under section 161 of the Code wherein he claimed to have witnessed the accident.
Page No.2 of 17State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 279/304-A IPC was filed before the court against accused Rakesh Kumar. Consequently, he was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to him as per norms.
Thereafter, the charge under sections 279/304-A IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
With a view to connect the accused with the crime, the prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses including the brother of the deceased namely Chander Kant.
PW1/Chander Kant was the real brother of the deceased Dheeraj Kumar. He was projected as an eye witness of the occurrence. He testified that on 04.09.2013 at about 9:15 p.m., he alongwith his brother Dheeraj Kumar (since deceased) was going to Bahadurgarh from INA colony, Delhi Haat. He was on his Honda Shine motorcycle bearing registration no. HR-13E-0234 while his brother was driving his Wagon-R car bearing registration No. DL-2CAA-6451. He was following his brother and when they reached at Sai Baba Mandir, Tikri Kalan, he saw one Dumper bearing no. HR-63A-9825, coming from Bahadurgarh side at high speed and the driver of the said vehicle turned right for crossing towards Jagdev Singh Tillon at a high speed and hit the car of his brother. As a result of which, his brother's car rammed under the dumper. He stopped his vehicle and many public persons also gathered there. Thereafter, driver of the offending vehicle moved back his vehicle just to remove the Wagon R Car and he alongwith public persons pulled out his brother outside from the car. Due to the impact of the accident, stomach of his brother got pressed by the handle of car. In the meantime, PCR van came at the spot and removed his brother to SGM Hospital. He also accompanied the said PCR Van on his motorcycle.
Page No.3 of 17State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 He stated that he met the IO at the police station Mundka and signed the seizure memo of the DL and other documents of the offending vehicle. At the police station, IO enquired about the accident from him.
He identified the accused in the court as the driver of the offending vehicle.
He during his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel stated that he has no document to show that he owned a shop at Delhi-08, INA Colony, New Delhi. He stated that it took around 1 ½ hours to reach at the spot from INA. He followed the vehicle of his deceased brother at the distance of about 150 meter. He admitted the suggestion that there were several traffic signals on the way from INA colony to the spot. He stated that he stopped his motorcycle as and when desired as per the traffic signals. He admitted the suggestion that some sometimes he was ahead of his brother and sometimes his brother's vehicle was ahead of him. He admitted that whenever his brother crossed the red signal, he could not follow him and that whenever he could not follow the vehicle of his brother after crossing Nangloi. He stated that at the time when the incident occurred, he was at a distance of 250/300 meters behind the vehicle of his brother. He stated that it took 3 to 4 minutes to reach at the spot. He admitted the suggestion that there was no street light at the spot and that he did not see the accident as he reached at the spot after the accident and that he did not see the driver of the offending vehicle at the spot.
He stated that PCR Van came at the spot after 5 to 10 minutes and removed his injured brother from the spot and got him admitted in Hospital. He stated that he accompanied the PCR van on his motorcycle. He stated that he reached the hospital after 10 to 15 minutes after PCR Van. He denied the suggestion that he was not at the spot or had not seen the incident or that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO and being the brother of the deceased.
Q. In your examination in chief you had stated that accused Rakesh Kumar was driving the vehicle and you had identified him at the spot and today you are Page No.4 of 17 State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 denying the said facts, which of you facts/statement are correct (objected to by Ld. APP for the State)?
A. My statement given today in the court is true and correct.
PW2/Devender Prasad was the uncle of the deceased Dheeraj Kumar. He has proved the dead body identification memo as Ex.PW2/A and the dead body handing over memo as Ex.PW2/B. PW3/SI Nand Kishore was the Duty Officer. He proved the FIR/Ex.PW3/B. PW4/ASI Devender Kumar had conducted the mechanical inspection of the damaged vehicles. He proved his report as Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B. PW5/ASI Bahadur Singh was the 2nd IO of the case. After completion of investigation, he had filed the challan in the court.
PW6/SI Harpal Singh was the 1st IO of the case. He testified that on 04.09.2013, he was posted at police station Mundka as ASI. On that day, he was on emergency duty. At about 11:30 pm, he received a DD no. 38-A regarding accident at Rohtak Road near Sai Baba Mandir/Ex.PW6/A. Thereafter, he alongwith Constable Pradeep reached at the spot and found one dumper no.HR-63A-9825 and one Maruti Wagon R car no. DL-2C-AA-6451lying in accidental condition. He came to know injured has been taken to SGM hospital. He left Constable Pradeep at the spot and rushed to SGM hospital and collected the MLC of injured Dheeraj. He was unfit for statement. No eyewitness was found in the hospital. Thereafter, he came back to the spot and on the basis of DD Entry, prepared the rukka/Ex.PW6/B and handed over the same to Constable Pradeep for registration of the FIR. Accordingly, he went to the police station along with copy of rukka and after registration of FIR came to the spot and handed over the copy to him. He prepared the site plan on his own/Ex.PW6/C and also taken the photographs of the spot by mobile phone. Both the vehicles were seized vide seizure memo of the dumper Ex.PW6/D and car Ex.PW6/E. Meanwhile, he received information through Duty Page No.5 of 17 State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 Officer vide DD no.9 about the death of injured. Thereafter, they returned to police station and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. Next morning, he went to SGM hospital alongwith the relative of deceased whose name he does not remember. The dead body of deceased was identified and he recorded the statement of identification vide statement of Chander Kant/Ex.PW6/F and Devender/Ex.PW2/A. Postmortem was conducted and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to the relative of deceased vide Ex.PW2/B. He stated that on 06.09.2013, he gave notice under section 133 of MV Act to Rakesh Kumar/Ex.PW6/G. In response to the notice, accused came to the police station and stated that he was driving the dumper at the time of accident. One person namely Chander Kant came to the police station and claimed to have witnessed the accident. He arrested the accused in the presence of Chander Kant vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C. He identified the accused in the court.
This witness during his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel stated that he had not shown the position of eye witness in the site plan as no eye witness was available at the time of preparation. He admitted the suggestion that the deceased was admitted by the PCR official in the hospital and that eye witness Chander Kant is the real brother of deceased. He stated that Constable Pradeep returned back to the spot after registration of FIR after about one hour. He denied the suggestion that he planted Chander Kant as eye witness or that he was deposing falsely.
PW7/Head Constable Pradeep was the MHC(M). He proved the entry in Register No.19/Ex.PW7/A regarding deposition of the case property in the Malkhana.
During the course of trial, accused admitted under section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code) genuineness of the MLC and post-mortem report of the deceased, consequently the concerned Doctors were dropped from the list of witnesses.
Page No.6 of 17State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused under section 313 of the Code was recorded to afford him an opportunity to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence. He denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. He did not examine any witness in his defence.
I have heard the learned defence counsel and learned APP for the State and have also perused the records very carefully.
Arguments It was argued on behalf of the accused that PW1, the sole eye witness to the alleged manner of accident is highly interested witness being the brother of the deceased. He submitted that PW1 is a planted witness; hence his evidence cannot be looked into.
Per contra, it was argued by the APP for the State that PW1 is a natural witness and he was in fact present at the spot at the time of accident.
In rebuttal, it was submitted by the learned defence counsel that as per the prosecution itself, PW1 was neither present at the spot nor in the hospital at the time of admission of the injured. He drew the attention of the court towards the testimony of PW1 and IO and submitted that as per PW1 his brother was removed to SGM hospital by PCR Van and he accompanied the PCR Van to the hospital, however, his statement was recorded by the police in the police station after two days of the accident. He submitted that had PW1 been actually present at the spot and had accompanied his brother along with the officials of PCR, the FIR should have been registered on the basis of his statement and not on the basis of DD Entry and his name must have appeared in the MLC at the relevant column "name of the relative or friend".
He further submitted that date of accident was 04.09.2013 whereas the statement of brother of deceased was recorded on 06.09.2013 i.e. after a delay of two days. However, no explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why his Page No.7 of 17 State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 statement was not recorded shortly after the accident, which throws doubt on the prosecution case.
In counter, it is submitted by the learned APP for the State that the evidence of a witness does not become untrustworthy merely because he was examined after delay by the police.
Decision and brief reasons for the same All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person can be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person has been arrested, sent behind the bars pending investigation or trial or charged for an offence gives rise to no inference of his guilt at trial. The law does not require an accused to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the accused, unless the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of accused's guilt on appreciation of prosecution evidence.
The accused is charged for the offence punishable under sections 279/304-A IPC. Section 279 IPC deals with rash and negligent driving. It reads as under:
279. Rash driving or riding on a public way- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both"
To constitute an offence under section 279 IPC, it must be proved that the person was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner.
Section 304-A IPC provides punishment for causing death by negligence. It reads as under:-Page No.8 of 17
State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 304A. Causing death by negligence--Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. While dealing with section 279/304-A IPC, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Niranjan Singh vs The State (Delhi Administration) 1997 CriLJ 336 observed as under:-
"................What Section 304-A, I.P.C. requires is causing death by doing any rash or negligent act, and this means that death must be the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act. I may in this connection usefully excerpt of the following observations of Sir Lawrence Jenkins is Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, (1902) 4 Bom LR 679:-
"To impose criminal liability under S. 304-A, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of the author's negligence. It must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non."....................."
Interested witness Learned defence counsel strenuously urged that PW1 was none else but the real brother of the deceased and, therefore, he is a highly interested witness and as such his sole testimony cannot be relied upon.
Per contra, it was submitted by the learned APP for the State that the version of an eye-witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he or she happened to be a relative of the deceased.
Page No.9 of 17State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the evidentiary value of interested and related witness in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kalki & Anr 1981 SCC (2) 752 held as under:-
"Related' is not equivalent to 'interested'. A witness may be called 'interested' only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eye witness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be 'interested'.......".
In the case of State of Haryana vs Ram Singh decided on 15 January, 2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:-
"....Admittedly all the supposed eye-witnesses are relations of the deceased. As such they fall within a category of interested witness. It is not that the evidence ought to be discredited by reason of the witness being simply an interested witness but in that event the Court will be rather strict in its scrutiny as to the acceptability of such evidence.....".
In the case of Namdeo vs State of Maharashtra decided on 13th March, 2007, the Hon'ble Supreme held as under:-
"....a close relative cannot be characterised as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness......"
In the case of Sarwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1976 SC 2304, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"............ it is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter Page No.10 of 17 State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, ! not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinized with a little care. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration..................."
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I find no merit in the submission of the learned defence counsel. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility and reliability of a witness. The only caution is that their evidence will have to be evaluated with caution.
Now, let us see if the testimony proffered by the prosecution was credible and reliable?
It was argued on behalf of the accused that PW1 was a single witness and the cardinal principle is that a court should only rely on such evidence when the evidence is clear and satisfactory in every material respect within the totality of the evidence produced at the trial.
He argued that the testimony of PW1 is perforated with contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities. He referred to the apparent contradiction between the statement he made in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination and argued that he was a planted witness.
In continuation, he submitted that there was delay in recording the statement of PW1 and this unexplained delay in recording the statement of a material eye- witness throws a serious doubt as to whether he was really an eye witness or not. He reiterated that if PW1 had witnessed the accident, he would have informed the police at the earliest point of time.
Per contra, it was argued by the learned APP for the State that PW1 was a natural witness, who testified that the accused while driving the vehicle at fast speed took a right turn, as a result of which accident took place.
Page No.11 of 17State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 He submitted that due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused, a precious life was lost. He, therefore, prayed that the accused may be convicted of the offence charged with.
In rebuttal, it was submitted on behalf of the accused that the deceased was drunk when the accident occurred. He drew the attention of the Court towards the MLC of deceased wherein it was mentioned "alcohol positive". He submitted that a person with a modicum of intelligence would have appreciated that driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol would occur with fatal consequences.
The prosecution in support of the case examined PW1 Chander Kant as eye witness to the occurrence. PW6 was the IO of the case. Rest of the evidence of prosecution is more or less formal. In his statement recorded under section 294 of the Code, accused admitted the genuineness of the MLC and post mortem report of deceased as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
Thus, the entire case of the prosecution rests on the credibility of PW1/Chander Kant, who was the real brother of the deceased. He testified during his examination-in-chief that he was an eye witness of the crime and described how the accident was caused. He stated that on 04.09.2013 at about 09:15 p.m., he along with his brother (since deceased) was going to Bahadurgarh from INA Colony. He was riding his Motorcycle while his brother was driving his Wagon-R car. He was following his brother and when they reached at Sai Baba Mandir, Tikri Kalan, he saw a Dumper bearing Registration number HR-63A-9825 coming in high speed from Bahadurgarh side. The driver of the said truck took a right turn and dashed against his brother's car, due to which the car rammed into the truck. He stopped his vehicle. Driver of the truck reversed the truck. He with the help of public persons pulled out the body of his brother from the car. In the meantime, PCR Van also reached there and removed his brother to SGM hospital. He accompanied PCR to hospital on his motorcycle.
Page No.12 of 17State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 Contrary to this, under cross-examination, he was quite clear that he did not witness the accident. He stated that he reached at the spot after the accident and that he did not see the driver at the spot. He stated that he could not follow the vehicle of his brother after crossing Nangloi.
Since the witness denied having seen the accused at the spot, a clarification was sought from him by asking the following question:-
Q. In your examination-in-chief you had stated that the accused Rakesh Kumar was driving the vehicle and you had identified him at the spot and today you are denying the said fact, which are of your facts/statements are correct? (Objected to by the learned APP for the State).
His response to the apparent contradiction between his examination-in-chief and cross-examination was that his statement given today (under cross-examination) in the court was true and correct.
Though the above-stated question was objected to by the learned APP for the State, however, there is nothing on record to suggest that he asked for an opportunity to re-examine the witness and was denied of it by the court.
From the above, it is evident that PW1 has contradicted himself in certain respects (which have already been discussed above). I am of the considered view that these contradictions give rise to reasonable doubt if indeed he witnessed the accident, and whether the accident had taken place in the manner as alleged by him.
Further, as per PW1, his brother was shifted to SGM hospital by PCR Van and he accompanied PCR van on his motorcycle. However, the IO, PW6/SI Harpal Singh, testified that at about 11:30 p.m., he received a DD entry regarding accident at Rohtak Road. Therefore, he along with Constable Pradeep went to the spot and found a Dumper bearing Registration number HR-63A-9825 and a Wagon-R car bearing Registration number DL-2C-AA-6451 in accidental condition. He came to know that injured had already been shifted to SGM hospital. Therefore, he rushed Page No.13 of 17 State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 to the hospital and collected the MLC of injured, however, no eye witness was found in the hospital. Thereafter, he came back to the spot and prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered.
It does seem strange that if PW1 had accompanied the PCR Van to the hospital, why he did not meet the police/IO in the hospital?
IO/PW6 further testified that the dead body of the deceased was identified by Chander Kant and Devender and he recorded their statements to this effect. The statement is Ex.PW6/F. It is pertinent to note that the statement/Ex.PW6/F is dated 05.09.2013. Whereas his statement regarding having witnessed the accident was recorded on 06.09.2013.
If the brother of the deceased namely Chander Kant, who has been examined as an eye witness, has indeed witnessed the accident as claimed by the prosecution, why his statement was not recorded on 05.09.2013? Why his statement was recorded by the police on 06.09.2013 i.e. after a delay of two days? No explanation whatsoever for such inordinate delay in recording the statement of PW1 has been given by the prosecution. This unexplained delay in the recording of the statement of a material eye witness coupled with the apparent contradictions in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination throw a serious doubt on the prosecution case.
Furthermore, as per the MLC of the deceased, he was drunk at the time of accident. Therefore, his being responsible for the accident i.e. driving the vehicle under the influence of Alcohol cannot be ruled out.
It is the duty of driver of every motor vehicle plying on the public road to follow the settled traffic rules and regulations and everyone is supposed to follow the traffic signals. However, in the case in hand, the deceased failed to follow the rules.
Page No.14 of 17State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mohan Shyam vs The State (NCT of Delhi) decided on 25th May, 2012 held as under:-
".....Every person is bound to anticipate the dangers normally expected on the road and not challenge his own safety by driving in the dangerous fashion as evidenced in the present case. It is not that in every case of road accident, the driver of a commercial or heavy vehicle shall be presumed to be guilty of rash and negligent driving and without any iota of evidence against him; he will be deemed guilty from the start of the trial. . In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur".......................".
Result Given the number and nature of the contradictions and discrepancies coupled with delay in recording the statement of PW1, it would not be safe for this court to rely on the evidence of main witness, PW1/Chander Kant. He cannot be said to have been a credible witness. It is trite law that when dealing with the evidence of a single witness such evidence must be approached with the necessary caution. Before a court can convict, it must be satisfied that such evidence is clear and satisfactory in all material respects. However, in this case the evidence of PW1 is not of such quality, and there is no other evidence on record which may even lend some assurance, short of corroboration that he is making a truthful statement.
In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. A Court cannot draw an inference of guilt from mere suspicion.
Page No.15 of 17State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam decided on 28th May, 2013 held as under:-
6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that `may be' proved, and something that `will be proved'. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide:
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar & Anr. v. State of M.P., AIR 1952 SC 343; State through CBI v. Mahender Singh Dahiya, AIR 2011 SC 1017; and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979).
For the reasons which I have outlined above, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to discharge the heavy burden imposed on it by law of satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. Consequently, accused RAKESH KUMAR is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.Page No.16 of 17
State vs. Rakesh Kumar FIR No.188/13 Bail bond under section 437-A of the Code furnished. Perused and accepted.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on 29th day of June, 2019 (Babita Puniya) MM-06/West District, Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi/29.06.2019 This judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signature.
(Babita Puniya) MM-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi /29.06.2019 Page No.17 of 17