Delhi District Court
State vs Bhupender Kumar on 3 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS COURT, NEW DELHI STATE VS. BHUPENDER KUMAR FIR NO: 208/2010 P. S Chanakyapuri U/s 279 & 338 IPC Crc No./44932/2016 JUDGMENT
Date of its institution : 30.05.2011
Name of the complainant : Sh. Arvind Kumar, S/o Sh. Ram
Narain, R/o D-153, Garrage No. 70,
Satya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New
Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 17.12.2010
Name of the accused : Bhupender Kumar, S/o Sh. Umrao
Singh.
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 13.06.2025
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of orders : 03.09.2025
Name of APP : Sh. Raghav Khurana
0
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1.Vide this judgment, I seek to dispose off the case of the prosecution filed against the accused Bhupender Kumar S/o Sh. Umrao Singh for having committed the offence punishable u/s 279 & 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1861 (hereinafter referred as "IPC").
2.Briefly stated, as per the case of the prosecution, on 17.12.2010 at about 1 PM in front of C-II/151, Satya Marg, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi, the accused Bhupender Kumar was driving Innova car bearing no. HR 55 KT 4942 at a high speed i.e. in a rash and negligent manner. While driving the offending vehicle in such a manner, the accused hit against a girl namely Laxmi when she was crossing the road. Due to the accident, the victim Laxmi sustained grievous injuries.
3.After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Chanakyapuri and a charge sheet was filed against the accused Bhupender Kumar for the offence punishable u/s 279 & 338 IPC. Thereafter, cognisance was taken and notice was framed against the accused vide order dated 22.08.2015 for the offence punishable u/s 279 & 338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 1
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined the following seven witnesses:
• Sh. Arvind Kumar, the complainant and eye witness, deposed as PW-1;
• Ms. Laxmi, the eye witness and victim, deposed as PW-2; • Sh. Tavesh Kumar, the eye witness, deposed as PW-3; • Smt. Kiran, the eye witness, deposed as PW-4; • Sh. Vikram Singh, deposed as PW-5;
• HC Sandeep Kumar, deposed as PW-6; and • Retd. SI Chandu Lal, the investigating officer, deposed as PW-7.
5.PW-1 was the complainant and eye witness of the present case. He is the father of the victim. He deposed that on 17.12.2010 at about 1 PM, he along with his wife and daughter were going to D-1, Satya Marg, for purchasing the food article from the shop of Ram Mandir. On that day, when they reached at Satya Marg, in front of D-151, suddenly one Innova car bearing no. HR 55KT 4942 came at a fast speed and hit his daughter Laxmi from the back side due to which she fell down on the patri. Thereafter, PW-1 raised alarm and one person who was coming from Satya Marg apprehended the driver of the offending vehicle. PW-1 identified the accused as driver of the offending vehicle. Thereafter, PW-1 2 took his daughter to Trauma Centre where she remained unconscious for around 10 days. He also stated that her daughter had sustained injuries on her legs.
6.PW-1 further stated that when the accused was apprehended at the spot, someone called the police which came at the spot. The accused was handed over to the police along with the offending vehicle. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/A. Police also arrested the accused in his presence vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B. The offending vehicle was also seized and site plan was also prepared. He identified the offending vehicle from the photographs Ex. P-1 (colly).
7.PW-1 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused during which he stated that he was working as helper at UP Sadan. He did not remember the day of the incident. He also stated that his daughter was taken in Trauma Centre, near Safdarjung Hospital by his family members.
8.PW-2 was the eye witness and victim of the present case. She deposed that on 17.12.2010 at about 1 PM, she along with her father and mother were going to D-1, Satya Marg for purchasing food articles from the shop of Ram Mandir. On that day, when they reached at Satya Marg, suddenly, 3 one white colour Innova car came at a fast sped and hit him from back side due to which she became unconscious. When she regained consciousness, she found herself in the hospital. Police recorded her statement but she did not remember the date when his statement was recorded.
9.PW-2 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In her cross-examination, she stated that in the accident, her mother did not sustain any injuries. She did not know as to whether her mother was witness of the present case or not. She also stated that her statement was recorded by the police. She did not remember for how many days did she remain in the hospital. She further stated that she had sustained injuries on her head and right legs. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
10.PW-3 was an eye witness of the present case who had apprehended the accused with the help of other public persons. He deposed that on 17.12.2010 at about 1-1:30 Pm, he was coming from Satya Marg, Jaswant Place and was going towards Chamberi. When he reached near the Satya Kutumb, Satya Marg, he saw that one car i.e. white colour Innova car bearing registration no. HR 55KT 4942 came at a fast speed and hit a girl due to which the said girl fell down and sustained injuries and the driver of 4 the offending vehicle ran away towards 109, Satya Sadan along with his car. Thereafter, they followed the accused and apprehended him at 109, Satya Sadan with the help of other public persons. He correctly identified the accused in the Court. He also identified the offending vehicle from the photographs.
11.PW-3 was cross-examined by the Ld. APP with the permission of the Court as he had resiled from his statement. In the cross-examination, he admitted that the complainant had raised alarm. He voluntarily stated that thereafter, they tried to apprehend the accused along with the offending vehicle when he was trying to fell away.
12.PW-4 was the mother of the victim and another eye witness of the present case. She deposed that on the day of the incident at about 1 PM, she along with her daughter Laxmi were going to Ram Mandir on foot. In the meantime, one car came from her back side and hit her daughter from the back side due to which her daughter had sustained injuries and became unconscious. She also stated that one person had apprehended the driver of the said car. She also stated that the present accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused as the accused was driving the car at a very high speed of about 100 km per hour. She identified the 5 offending vehicle from the photographs. The identity of the accused was not disputed during the testimony of the PW-4.
13.PW-4 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused. In the cross-examination, she stated that she along with her daughter was crossing the road. She also stated that there was no traffic signal at the spot. She voluntarily stated that the spot was a street and there was no traffic on the road at the time of the accident. She denied the suggestions given by the accused.
14.PW-5 was the registered owner of the offending vehicle. He stated that he was the owner of the vehicle bearing no. HR 55KT 4942 make Innova and he was the director of M/s Ganga Tourists India Private Limited. He stated that in the year 2010, he went to PS Chanakyapuri and got the vehicle released. He identified the vehicle from the photographs. He was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
15.PW-6 and PW-7 were the police officials who were involved in the investigation. PW-7 was the investigating officer of the present case. Both of them reached at the spot after receiving the information about the accident vide DD No. 8A. They deposed that after reaching the spot at Satya Marg, they saw that the public persons had gathered there and 6 there was blood on the patri. They were informed that an accident had taken place there and the driver was present at Madhu Limaye Marg. Thereafter, they reached there where the complainant and Tavera Kumar met them and the offending vehicle was also found. The complainant produced the accused. They correctly identified the accused. Thereafter, IO went to the hospital. After coming back to the spot, IO recorded the statement of the complainant and got the present FIR registered. IO prepared the site plan. IO also seized the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/A and seized the driving license of the accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW-6/B. The accused was also arrested and his personal search was also conducted. Both of them correctly identified the accused and the offending vehicle. IO also seized the documents of the offending vehicle. Both of them were duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused.
16.The accused also admitted the mechanical inspection report dated 18.12.2010, MLC No. 293268/2010 and copy of the present FIR Ex. A-1 to A-3 respectively u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Hence, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with.
7
DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED
17.After examination of all prosecution witnesses, at the request of Ld. APP, the prosecution evidence was closed on 19.12.2023. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("Cr.P.C") on 04.09.2024 wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to him which he denied and took a defence that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He also stated that no such incident took place from his car.
18.The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and final arguments were heard.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
19.During the final arguments, the Ld. APP submitted that the accident was caused by the accused himself. The complainant and victim who were also the eye witnesses of the present case had completely supported the case of the prosecution. The accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident at a very fast speed i.e. in a rash and negligent manner. He also fled away from the spot after the accident and did not bother to take the deceased to the hospital. Thus, the accused was rash 8 and negligent in his driving. Hence, the accused should be convicted in the present case.
20.Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts in the present case. It was argued that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. There are many loopholes in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency. Thus, benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the accused.
21.I have heard the Ld. APP and Ld. defence counsel and have perused the case file.
22.Before, discussing the testimonies of PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the legal position involved in the present case.
LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
23.Section 279 of the IPC provides for the offence of rash driving or riding on a public way. It reads as under:
"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 9 may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
24.On bare reading of the above provision, it becomes clear that there are primarily three essential ingredients which constitute offence of rash driving on a public way.
a. Person must be driving or riding on a public way;
b. He must be driving in a rash or negligent manner;
c. Likely to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury to any person
25.Section 338 IPC provide for the offences of causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others. This provision is the consequence of a rash or negligent act of driving on a public way punishable u/s 279 IPC.
338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others- Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
26.The doing of a rash or negligent act, which causes, grievous injury /is the essence of section 338 IPC. There is a slight distinction between a rash act and a negligent act. 'Rashness' conveys the idea of recklessness 10 or doing an act without due consideration and 'negligence' connotes want of proper care. A rash act, therefore, implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference to its consequences. The doer, being conscious of the mischievous or illegal consequences, does the act knowing that his act may bring some undesirable or illegal results but without hoping or intending them to occur. A negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal consequences.
27.A perusal of the above discussed provisions makes it very clear that an act of rashness or negligence endangering the human life or personal safety is a common ingredient in all these offences. Now a question arises as to what would constitute a rash or negligent act. At this stage, reference may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed in detail as to what constitute a rash or negligent act. It interalia held the following:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sens that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences.11
Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution."
28.Further, in the case of Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406, while discussing the legal position with respect to an offence u/s 279/304A IPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interalia held the following:
"Obviously the foundation in accusations under Section 279 IPC is not negligence. Similarly in Section 304 A the stress is on causing death by negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in application of either Section 279 or 304 A it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved."
29.Therefore, indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences.
30.Further, it should be noted that there should be direct link between the act or rashness or negligence and hurt/grievous hurt/death, as the case 12 may be, suffered by the victim. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562 has discussed the ingredients which need to be established by the prosecution for convicting an accused u/s 279/304 A IPC. The Hon'ble Court has interalia held the following:
"As observed in Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As regards the offence punishable under section 304A IPC, it was observed that the point to be established is that the act of the accused was responsible for the death and that such act of the accused must have been rash and negligent although it did not amount to culpable homicide. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under section 279 or section 304A, the commission of a rash or negligent act has to be proved."
31.The above-mentioned judgment sufficiently enlightens us that for establishing accusations u/s 338 IPC, prosecution is not only required to establish that the accused was rash or negligent while doing the said act or omitting to do any act, but it is additionally incumbent on prosecution to establish that the causa causans of injury sustained by the injured or the proximate cause of injury was the act of accused.
13
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
32.The accused Bhupender Kumar has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 279 & 338 IPC. After perusing the materials available on record, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Bhupender Kumar in the present case beyond reasonable doubts for the reasons discussed in the subsequent paragraphs.
33.From the perusal of the testimonies of the PWs, it would become clear that the accident happened from an Innova car bearing no. HR 55KT 4942 which was being by the accused (at the time of the accident), however, the same would not be sufficient to prove that the accused was driving the said vehicle at the time of the accident in a rash and negligent manner.
34.The term "rash and/or negligent driving" has already been discussed at length in the preceding part of this judgment. Indifference to the consequences of one's act or absence of reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting rash or negligent act is immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences. 14
35.A rash act is primarily an overhasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.
36.In the case of Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the meaning of rash and negligent driving has interalia observed the following:
10. In order to examine the merit or otherwise of contentions (b) and (c) raised on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary for the Court to first and foremost examine (a) what is rash and negligent driving; and (b) whether it can be gathered from the attendant circumstances. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a 15 person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to 'rash and negligent driving' within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC.XXXXX "12. Rash and negligent driving has to be examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is a fact incapable of being construed or seen in isolation. It must be examined in light of the attendant circumstances. A person who drives a vehicle on the road is liable to be held responsible for the act as well as for the result. It may not be always possible to determine with reference to the speed of a vehicle whether a person was driving rashly and negligently. Both these acts presuppose an abnormal conduct. Even when one is driving a vehicle at a slow speed but recklessly and negligently, it would amount to "rash and negligent driving" within the meaning of the language of Section 279 IPC. That is why the legislature in its wisdom has used the words "manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life". The preliminary conditions, thus, are that (a) it is the manner in which the vehicle is driven; (b) it be driven either rashly or negligently; and (c) such rash or negligent driving should be such as to endanger human life. Once these ingredients are satisfied, the penalty contemplated under Section 279 IPC is attracted."
37.The aforesaid judgment enlightens that it may not be possible to prove the factum of rash and negligent act may not be construed in isolation. It may not be possible to prove the same through direct evidence. It has to be seen or examined in light of the attendant circumstances. 16
38.In order to establish the rashness or negligence on the part of the accused, the prosecution has primarily relied upon the testimony of the complainant PW-1 and eye witnesses PW-2 to PW-4 that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at a high speed. No further statement was made by the complainant or other eye witnesses except PW-4 on this aspect.
39.Although, PW-4 in her testimony had stated that the offending vehicle was bring driven at the time of the accident at a speed of around 100 km per hour. However, this statement would be very difficult to believe. In her cross-examination, PW-4 herself had stated that the spot of the accident was a street. It would be almost impossible for the accused to drive the offending vehicle at a speed of 100 km per hour in a narrow street. Had the offending vehicle hit the victim at such a speed then the victim would have suffered more serious injuries and not just fracture on her legs.
40.Be that as it may, It is a settled proposition of law that high speed simpliciter would not be sufficient enough to automatically attribute rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. In the case titled State v. Parmodh Singh, 2009 CrLJ (NOC) 277, it has been held that:
"Mere driving of a vehicle at a high speed or slow speed does not lead to an inference that negligent 17 or rash driving had caused the accident resulting in injuries to the complainant. In fact speed is no criteria to establish the fact of rash and negligent driving of a vehicle"
41.Making a bald statement about high speed would be of no help to the prosecution. PW-1 did not depose anything about the manner in which the offending vehicle was being driven by the accused at the time of the accident i.e. whether the same was being driven in a zig zag manner, whether the same was being driven in violation of traffic rules etc.
42.Also, the investigating agency did not conduct a proper investigation in the present case. The investigating agency did not collect any CCTV footage of the incident. It cannot be ignored that the accident happened around a sensitive area where many embassies are situated. It would be very difficult to believe that there was no CCTV footage installed near the place of the incident. Even the informant of the accident was not examined by the investigating agency during the course of the investigation. The investigating agency did not even try to gather more incriminating evidence against the accused.
43.Hence, I find that while the accident was very unfortunate, however, there are insufficient materials on record to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at the time of 18 accident. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in the present case and benefit of doubts needs to be extended to the accused. Thus, there are insufficient materials on record to convict the accused in the present case for the offence punishable u/s 279 & 338 IPC.
44.Hence, the accused Bhupender Kumar stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 279 & 338 IPC. Digitally signed by ANIMESH KUMAR ANIMESH Date:
KUMAR Announced in the open court 2025.09.04 12:04:51 On 03.09.2025 +0530 (Animesh Kumar) JMFC-02, Patiala House Courts New Delhi It is certified that this judgment contains 19 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by ANIMESH ANIMESH KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2025.09.04 12:04:58 +0530 (Animesh Kumar) JMFC-02, Patiala House Courts New Delhi 19