Delhi District Court
State vs Vishal Kumar Fir No. 96/09 Ps.Maya Puri ... on 27 October, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. MILAN GOEL, MM-03 (WEST), THC,
DELHI
DLWT020010632010
ID No. 73010/16
FIR No. 96/2009
PS. Maya Puri
27.10.2022
ID No. : 73010/16
Date of commission of offence : 21.09.2009
Date of institution of the case : 26.05.2010
Name of the complainant : Sh. Saurav Sharma
Name of accused and address : Vishal Kumar S/o Sh. Babu Ram
Shankar, R/oA-250 Chunna Bhatti, Kiriti
Nagar, Delhi
Offence complained of or : U/s 279 & 304A IPC
proved
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted.
Date of judgment : 27.10.2022.
STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE
1. The main prosecution case against the accused is that on 21.09.2009 at about 6.45 AM at Mayapuri main road near metal forging Mayapuri, Delhi (in short called as spot hereinafter), within the jurisdiction of PS Mayapuri, Delhi, the accused was found driving the Tavera car bearing vehicle No. DL1VB5283 in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving, he had struck one scooter No. DL7SV5985 and caused death of its pillion driver i.e. Naresh Sharma (in short called as deceased hereinafter) due to impact of the injuries received by him. Hence, a charge sheet was filed against the accused after completion of entire investigation for the offences U/S 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short called as IPC hereinafter).
2. Accused appeared in the court and he was supplied the copies of documents relied upon in the charge sheet as per mandate of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short called as Cr.P.C hereinafter).
3. On 01.07.2010, a notice of accusation was framed against the accused for the offences U/s 279 & 304A of IPC to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. From the side of prosecution, PW1 Shourav Sharma, PW2 HC Jai Singh, PW3 Retd. Col. B.K Sharma, PW4 Gaurav Sharma, STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 2 of 12 PW5 SI Om Prakash, PW6 Shailender Singh, PW7 Dev Rishi Sharma, PW 7A1 HC Rajeev, PW8 Dr. Vineet Kumar Soni, PW9 Krishan Pal Singh, PW10 Dr. Rakesh Prasad Shahi,PW11 Ct. Vikas, PW12 Retd. ASI Raj Kapoor and PW13 ASI Devender Kumar were examined and then prosecution evidence (in short PE) was closed.
5. On 12.03.2020, statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the allegations against him as false and incorrect and he also wanted to lead defence evidence (in short D/E). DW1 Vishal Kumar was examined himself and then D/E was also closed.
6. Final arguments were heard on 14.09.2022 from Ld. APP for the state and from Ld. Counsel Sandeep Bawalia for accused on 06.10.2022.
7. The main submissions of Ld. APP for State were to the effect that on the basis of entire material on record, the case stands well proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences u/s 279 and 304A IPC and that he should be punished strictly as per law.
8. On the other hand, the main submissions of the accused and his Ld. counsel were to the effect that the accused was falsely implicated in this case; that he did not cause any accident in this matter; that no independent and reliable person of the locality was joined by investigating officer (in short I/O) during 1 Inadvertantly due to bulky record witness HC Rajeev was again mentioned as PW-7, though one witness has already been examined as PW-7. Hence, to avoid any confusion and for easy reference witness HC Rajeev is being read as PW-7A and his exhibits be read as PW7A/A. STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 3 of 12 investigation of this matter; that there are several material contradictions in the depositions of the PWs examined in this case; that the case does not stand proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, a request was made in the end for the acquittal of the accused.
9. I have perused the entire judicial file minutely in view of the above mentioned rival submissions.
10. Before proceeding further on merits of this case, I refer to the provisions of law for which notice of accusation was given to the accused in this matter.
11. Section 279 IPC provides 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."
12. Section 304A IPC provides as under:-
"304-A. 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."
STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 4 of 12
13. Now turning to the evidence on record:-
PW1 Shri Shourav Sharma deposed in his examination in chief mainly to the effect that he is the son of the deceased and his father was running a business of newspaper agency before the incident; that on 21.09.2009 at about 06:45 AM, when he was returning to his home along with the deceased on his scooter vehicle bearing No. DL 7SV 5985, one Tavera car bearing no. DL 1 VB 5283 being driven by the accused in a high speed as well as in rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter of PW1 from right side due to which both PW1 as well as the deceased fell on the ground and injury was caused to the deceased. Thereafter though the accused stopped his car at some distance but after seeing the condition of the deceased, accused left the spot immediately but PW1 was able to take record of the registration number of the vehicle. Thereafter PW1 took his father/deceased to the DDU for first aid and thereafter to Chanan Devi Hospital where the deceased got admitted for further treatment. Thereafter he came to the spot where PW 12 recorded his statement which is Ex. PW1/A. However next day i.e on 22.09.2009 accused was arrested in the PS itself in presence of PW1 vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B, offending vehicle was seized vide Ex. PW1/C and the other documents of the accused were seized vide Seizure memo Ex. PW1/D. The accused was correctly identified by this witness in the court during his deposition before the court on 21.01.11.
This witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Defence counsel but from the careful perusal of his entire deposition, I am STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 5 of 12 of the considered opinion that he was not shaken on the main points regarding causing of fatal accident by the accused herein while driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which resulted into death of the injured subsequently.
14. PW2 HC Jai Singh deposed that on 21.09.2009, he was posted as duty officer at PS Mayapuri Delhi and recorded FIR in this case of which copy is on record as Ex.PW2/A. He also made endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/B.
15. PW3 Retd. Col. B K Sharma deposed, inter-alia, that on 28.09.2009, he identified the dead body of the deceased at DDU, Delhi who had died due to injury caused by the accident on 21.09.2009 ,vide his statement Ex.PW3/A.
16. PW4 has also deposed in support of the prosecution almost on the same lines as that of the deposition of PW1 except for the fact that he himself has not seen the accident as he was not present at the spot at the time of accident; rather the facts were told to him by PW1 after the accident.
17. PW5 SI Om Prakash deposed about receiving a call on 21.09.2009 regarding accident of this matter at/near Lohia factory in between MayaPuri Chowk, Delhi for which DD entry was made vide Ex. PW5/A. He again on 28.09.2009 received information from Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri regarding the death of the deceased and DD entry for the same was made which is Ex. PW5/B.
18. PW6 Shailender Singh is the superdar of the offending vehicle bearing No. DL-1VB-5283 who deposed that on/before STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 6 of 12 20.09.2009 the vehicle was being driven by the accused. He also produced the superdarinama which is Ex. PW6/A as well as the photographs of the vehicle which are Ex. PW6/A1-A2. Further the accused did not dispute the identity of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL-1VB-5283 and the said fact was duly recorded on 23.04.2015.
19. PW7 Dev Rishi Sharma deposed that on 28.09.2009 whereby he also identified the dead body of his brother-in-law/deceased at the mortuary of DDU hospital, Delhi vide his statement Ex.PW7/A.
20. PW7A Ct. Rajeev deposed, interalia, that on 21.09.2009, he was posted at PS Mayapuri Delhi as Constable and he along with I/O of this case PW12 ASI Raj Kapoor, reached the DDU hospital from where they got to know that the patient has been discharged from the hospital. Thereafter they reached at the spot where they found a scooter in an accidental condition; that registration number of Scooter was DL7SV 5985; that they met PW1 who told them that the deceased had been admitted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital; that PW12 prepared Rukka and handed over to him (PW7A) and he returned to the spot with carbon copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to PW12 at the spot; that the PW12 served notice u/s 133 M.V Act to the owner of the offending vehicle; that the scooter was taken into police possession vide memos Ex.PW7A/A and that I/O/PW12 recorded his (PW7A) statement. He was asked several questions in his cross examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel as regards STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 7 of 12 nature of his duties at police station Mayapuri Delhi on due date and time; as regards his reaching in the Hospital concerned and recording statement of the witnesses. From the careful perusal of his entire deposition, I am of the considered that he was also not shaken on material points as regards causing of accident by the accused on due date and time.
21. PW-8 Dr. Vineet Kr Soni deposed about the preparation of MLC No.19188 dt. 21.09.2009 (07:15 a.m) of the deceased by Dr. Awdesh Sharma and same is Ex. PW8/A. He further deposed that the deceased was brought to the hospital with a history of Road Traffic Accident and the deceased was referred to orthopedic and ophthalmology dept. for further treatment.
22. PW9 Krishan Pal Singh, Record Clerk from DDU Hospital, Delhi deposed about Post Mortem Report No. 1121/09 prepared by Dr. Sushil Kr. Chaurasia in this matter of which copies are on record as Ex.PW9/A.
23. PW10 Dr. Rakesh Prasad Shahi who deposed about the preparation of death summary of the deceased by Dr. Vachaspati Kumar. He stated that the deceased died on 28.09.2009 due the head injury caused by the accident on 21.09.2009. The death summary report is Ex. PW10/A. Perusal of the same also shows the death of the deceased was caused due to cardiac arrest which was the result of head injuries received by injured in a road traffic accident and all the injuries of the deceased were opined as ante mortem in nature and of same duration.
STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 8 of 12
24. PW-11 Ct. Vikas deposed on the similar lines to that of PW-12.
He deposed that on 28.09.2009 upon receiving the information about the death of the deceased he along with PW-12 went to the Mata Chanan Hospital from where the body of the deceased was shifted to mortuary of DDU Hospital. Thereafter, after conducting the post mortem of the body of the deceased, the dead body was handed over to the relatives.
25. PW12 happens to be the I/O of this matter. He deposed in his examination in chief regarding various steps taken by him during investigation of this case. This witness was not cross examined at all on behalf of accused despite opportunity.
26. PW13 ASI Devender Kumar deposed that he conducted mechanical inspection of both the vehicles involved in this matter vide Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B respectively and that both the vehicles got fresh damages on left and right side respectively.
27. However, after the completion of PE and recording of statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C , the accused filed an application u/s 315 Cr.P.C for his own examination which was allowed vide order dt. 06.10.2021. Thereafter Accused was examined as DW1.
28. DW1 Vishal Kumar deposed in his support in this matter. On the careful perusal of his entire deposition, I am of the considered opinion that he has not been successful to prove to the satisfaction of this court that he is really innocent in this matter or that he did not cause any accident pertaining to this matter for the reason that he could not substantiate his plea of alibi.
STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 9 of 12
29. It is pertinent to mention the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in It was observed in Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera V State of Odisha, 2017 SCC Online Supreme Court 1336 that the conviction can be based on the testimony of single eye witness if he or she passes the test of reliability and that is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important. The Supreme Court in Veer Singh & others V State of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 455 observed as under:-
"Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided Under Section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable."
The prosecution does not require number of eye witnesses to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if there is one eye witness and his testimony is up to the mark, the conviction can be based upon the same. In Namdeo V State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 10 of 12 SCC 793, this Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. "It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs." In Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 : JT 1993 (2) SC 290, the Court observed; "Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect."
30. On the basis of above mentioned discussion and on the basis of entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution side has been successful STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 11 of 12 in proving the essential ingredients of the offences u/s 279 and 304A IPC against the accused herein beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I hereby convict accused Vishal Kumar S/o Sh. Babu Ram for the above mentioned offences. Let one certified copy of this Judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
31. Further, In compliance of directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Karan Vs. State NCT of Delhi Crl. A.352/20 decided on 27.11.2020, the convict is directed to file the affidavit (in the format Annexure 'A' of the judgment) within 10 days from today. Ld. APP for the State is also directed to file the affidavit regarding the expenses incurred on prosecution of the case along with supporting documents, if any within 30 days from today.
(Milan Goel) MM-03 West/THC/Delhi 27.10.2022 STATE Vs VISHAL KUMAR FIR No. 96/09 PS.Maya Puri Page No . 12 of 12