Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikram Kumar on 29 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVLI TALWAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 06, CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 224/2016
PS - Civil Lines
U/s - 279/304A IPC
State Vs. Vikram Kumar
JUDGMENT
(a) Criminal Case No. 8353/2017
(b) CNR No. DLCT02-016242-2017
(c) Date of 05.09.2016 commission of offence
(d) Name of the Niranjan Kumar s/o Sh. Makhan Lal r/o House No. complainant 1295, Block-B, Gali No. 17, Pehla Pusta Sonia Vihar East Delhi.
(e) Name of the Vikram Kumar s/o Sh. Govind Ram r/o S-114/161, accused person(s), Nepali Camp, Vasant Vihar, Delhi. his parentage and residence
(f) Offence(s) Section 279/304A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 complained of or proved
(g) Plea of the Pleaded not guilty accused
(h) Final Order Convicted
(i) Date of institution 13.07.2017 of case
(j) Date when Not reserved judgment was reserved
(k) Date of judgment 29.04.2022 SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:17:01 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 1 of 23 Brief reasons for the decision of the case: -
1. The genesis of the prosecution story is that on 05.09.2016 at about 11:00 AM, in front of Monesty Market Gate, Ring Road, Zebra Crossing, Civil Lines within the jurisdiction of P.S. Civil Lines, the accused namely Vikram Kumar was found driving Innova Car bearing registration No. HR-
26CR-8382 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle") in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others and at the aforesaid date, time and place while driving the aforesaid vehicle in the aforesaid manner, he hit against one pedestrian namely Mohit Kumar while he was crossing the road on foot along with cycle and caused his death (not amounting to culpable homicide) and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC.
2. On finding a prima facie case to proceed against the accused, cognizance of the offences was taken by Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 13.07.2017 and accused was duly summoned and admitted to regular court bail. The provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were duly complied with. Arguments on the point of notice were heard and a formal notice for commission of offences under Sections 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused on 22.02.2018 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses.
PW1 Makhan Singh, PW2 Niranjan Kumar (complainant), PW3 Arvinder Singh, PW4 Ct. Kashmir Singh, PW5 HC Sohan Pal Singh (1 st I.O.), PW6 SI Jitender Pal Singh (3rd I.O.), PW7 SI Kunal (2nd I.O.) and PW8 ASI SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:17:10 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 2 of 23 Sanjeev Kumar.
4. The record transpires that during the course of trial, the accused admitted superdarinama of the offending vehicle Ex. P1, the present FIR Ex. P2, DD No. 15A dated 05.09.2016 Ex. P3, DD No. 1A dated 07.09.2016 Ex. P4, certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex. P5, endorsement on rukka Ex. P6, MLC No. 231690/16 of deceased dated 05.09.2016 Ex. P7 and post mortem report No. 923/16 of deceased Ex. PA u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and the examination of formal witnesses qua such documents was accordingly dispensed with.
5. The prosecution evidence was closed on 10.12.2021 and the accused was examined u/s 313 on 24.03.2022 wherein all incriminating evidence was put to him. The accused submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he was driving his vehicle properly as per rules and there was no negligence on his part and his car had not hit the deceased. He further stated that he was passing from the alleged spot and saw that an accident had already occurred. On humanitarian ground, he stopped his vehicle and made a call to 100 number and tried to help the deceased. The accused opted not to lead any evidence in his defence.
6. At the very outset of deliberations, a brief recapitulation of the testimonies of the witnesses becomes indispensable.
7. PW1 Makhan Singh deposed that on 08.09.2016 at Maulana Azad Medical College, Mortuary, he identified the dead body of his son Mohit vide SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:17:19 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 3 of 23 memo Ex.PW1/A and received his body vide memo Ex.PW1/B. The witness was not cross-examined by the defence despite grant of opportunity.
8. PW2 Niranjan Kumar is the complainant. He deposed that on 05.09.2016 at about 11.00 AM, he along with his brother Mohit were going to Civil Lines from Monesty Market and they were crossing the road on zebra crossing on foot from the side of Monesty Market to other side. He crossed the road while holding the bicycle by his hand and his brother was still crossing the road and one Innova car bearing registration No. HR ___ 8382 was coming from the side of Chandgi Ram Akhara in high speed. The said Innova car hit against his brother Mohit due to which he sustained injuries on his head and became unconscious at the spot. PCR van took his brother to Trauma Centre Hospital and he handed over driver of said Innova car namely, Vikram Kumar to the police. He further deposed that police recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A and site plan Ex. PW2/B was prepared at his instance. He further deposed that his cycle was seized by police vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C and accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D. He further deposed that the present incident was caused due to the high speed rash and negligent driving in uncontrolled manner by the accused driver Vikram Kumar which could have been avoided if accused would have applied brakes. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court. He also identified six photographs of the offending vehicle Ex. PW2/A1 to Ex. PW2/A6. Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date:
2022.04.29 17:17:27 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 4 of 23 During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness deposed that he did not attend his office on the day of incident. He further deposed that he visited Monesty Market for buying clothes for his brother. He further deposed that he did not know about the timing of opening of shops in the said market but generally, they get opened by 10:00 AM. He further deposed that there was a traffic signal at the spot of incident and they were crossing on zebra crossing and the red signal was on while they were crossing the road. He further deposed that the accused stopped his vehicle 20-25 feet away from the spot. He denied the suggestion that the incident was not caused by the offending vehicle. He deposed that the traffic light turned green from red after they crossed the road on zebra crossing. He further deposed that he had crossed the road and his brother was hit by the offending vehicle when he was walking behind him and on sudden application of break, he noticed that the said vehicle had hit his brother. He further deposed that at the time of hit, he was looking in front of him and suddenly turned back due to the noise of hit and immediate applications of break. He further deposed that traffic jam occurred due to the incident. He denied the suggestion that his brother was hit by some other vehicle and the present vehicle was falsely implicated. He also denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle stopped in order to help his brother. He deposed that the traffic light was red when his brother was hit by offending vehicle. He further deposed that he did not notice any traffic police official near the spot of incident and he did not make call on 100 number. He further deposed that no other person was present with him apart from his brother. He further deposed that when the offending vehicle stopped, the traffic light was showing red signal and after three minutes it SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:17:34 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 5 of 23 turned green. He denied the suggestion that accused had been falsely implicated in the present matter.
9. PW3 Arvinder Singh is the Mechanical Inspection Expert. He proved on record the mechanical inspection reports of bicycle Hero Jet dated 07.09.2016 Ex. PW3/A and the offending vehicle dated 07.09.2016 Ex. PW3/B. The witness was not cross-examined by the defence despite grant of opportunity.
10. PW4 Ct. Kashmir singh deposed that on 05.09.2016, he along with IO HC Sohan Pal were on emergency duty and on receiving of DD No. 15A regarding accident, they visited the spot where they met Ct. Sanjeev along with complainant Niranjan Kumar. Ct. Sanjeev Kumar handed over driver of offending vehicle bearing registration No. HR26-CR-8382 and told him that PCR Van had already taken injured to Trauma Centre. Thereafter, IO recorded statement of complainant and prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over original rukka and copy of FIR to IO HC Sohan Pal. Thereafter, IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant and seized Bicycle Hero Jet. Thereafter, IO arrested the accused and conducted personal search of accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW4/A. Thereafter, IO seized the RC, Insurance of offending vehicle and DL of accused vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/B and recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court. Digitally signed SHIVLI by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:17:44 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 6 of 23 During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness deposed that the said incident did not take place in his presence. He deposed that IO told him about the said incident and after receiving information, he reached at the spot along with IO after 8-10 minutes. He further deposed that when they reached at the spot, they met Ct. Sanjeev and complainant Niranjan. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan with the help of scales at the instance of complainant in his presence. He further deposed that IO carried complete kit for preparation of site plan. He further deposed that he never participated in preparation of site plan. He denied the suggestion that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case and that he was not driving the said vehicle at the time of incident. He further deposed that when they left the PS, they made departure entry.
11. PW 5 HC Sohan Pal Singh (1st I.O.) deposed on similar lines as PW4 Ct.
Kashmir Singh. He further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW5/A and got the case FIR registered through Ct. Kashmir. He further deposed that Ct. Kashmir came back at the spot after registration of FIR and handed over the original rukka, copy of FIR and certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act to him. Thereafter, he carried out investigation during which he prepared site plan and also seized offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. He also seized cycle of victim/injured. He further deposed that he also arrested accused in the present case and conducted his personal search. He further deposed that during investigation, accused handed over to him, his DL, RC and insurance certificate of offending vehicle and accused was released on police bail as the offence was Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:17:56 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 7 of 23 bailable. He further deposed that during the investigation, he deposited the case property in the Malkhana of the PS and got conducted the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle from Arvinder Singh Ex. PW5/C. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court. He also correctly identified the offending vehicle and cycle of victim from the nine photographs Ex. P-X1 (colly). He further deposed that during investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He further deposed that during the investigation, victim Mohit Kumar died and in the meanwhile, the case file was marked by SHO to 2 nd IO SI Kunal Kishore and accordingly, he handed over the file to the concerned IO.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, the witness deposed that he was informed about the accident by the Duty Officer and that he did not know who had given the information to the Duty Officer neither did he know who made call to PCR. He further deposed that he received the information at around 11.00 AM and the moment he received the information, he along with Ct. Kashmir Singh left for the spot. He further deposed that he did not make any departure entry regarding his visit to the spot. He further deposed that he reached at the spot within 5 minutes. He further deposed that the accident did not happen in his presence. He further deposed that when he reached at the spot, Ct. Sanjeev, complainant Niranjan Kumar and accused were already present there. He further deposed that public persons were standing far from the spot, however, when he asked them to become a witness to the accident, they refused to join the investigation by stating their personal reasons. He Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:18:06 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 8 of 23 further deposed that he did not give any notice to any public person due to paucity of time. He denied the suggestion that no accident happened by the offending vehicle. He also denied the suggestion that accused was passing by in his vehicle and when he saw the accident, he stopped his car. He further deposed that he did not know whether accused had made PCR call. He further deposed that he had entered the steps taken by him during investigation in the case diary. He further deposed that he had not filed the case diary. He denied the suggestion that no case diary was prepared that is why the same was not filed. He further deposed that the site plan was prepared with the help of cardboard. He further deposed that he did not carry any kit for preparation of site plan. He further deposed that the photographs were clicked by Ct. Sanjeev. He further denied the suggestion that the photographs were tampered because the offending vehicle had no role to play. He further deposed that the documents relating to the case were prepared at the spot by him. He further deposed that the complainant Niranjan Kumar informed him that the offending vehicle had caused the accident and that the statement of the complainant was recorded at the spot on the same day. He denied the suggestion that the statements and documents pertaining to the present case were recorded and prepared in the PS itself. He further deposed that they reached at Trauma Center from the spot within five minutes and returned back to the spot from Trauma Center. He further deposed that when they reached at the spot, accused, complainant and Ct. Sanjeev were present. He denied the suggestion that accused only helped the victim. He further deposed that he could not produce the mobile phone from which the photographs were clicked as the same belonged to Ct. Sanjeev. He denied the suggestion that accused had SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:18:16 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 9 of 23 been falsely implicated in the present case.
12. PW6 SI Jitender Pal Singh (3rd I.O.) deposed that on 12.10.2016, the case file of the present matter was marked to him for further investigation. He got the insurance of the offending vehicle verified and collected the post mortem report of the deceased from MAMC Delhi. He also served the notice to the legal heirs of deceased Mohit and filed the DAR in MACT Court. Thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the Court.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness deposed that he was not an eye witness to the present incident.
13. PW7 SI Kunal (2nd I.O.) deposed that on 07.09.2016, the present matter was marked to him for further investigation. On the same day, the information was received that the injured died during treatment in LNJP hospital, pursuant to which Section 304A IPC was added in the present case. The post mortem of deceased was conducted after proper identification at MAMC and thereafter dead body was handed over to his relative. Offending vehicle was released on superdari. Thereafter, the present case was transferred to MACT Cell.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness deposed that he was not an eye-witness to the present incident.
14. PW8 ASI Sanjeev Kumar deposed that on 05.09.2016, at about 11 AM, he was present on his duty at beat Monesty Market Outer Ring Road and when he was patrolling at the footpath near Gareeb Gaushala, he noticed SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:18:25 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 10 of 23 the traffic jam near Monesty market gate zebra crossing. He went there and found out that one Innova Car had hit against one cycle. He took the photograph of the spot from his mobile phone camera. To ease the traffic, he got the said Innova car and cycle removed from the spot and stationed near the footpath. He informed the PS and Duty officer informed him that call regarding the incident had already been received and IO HC Sohan Pal along with Ct. Kashmir had already left for the spot. The said police officer reached to the spot. He handed over the accused Vikram Kumar driver of Innova car bearing registration No. HR26CR8382 to the IO. The injured had been shifted to Trauma Center by PCR Van. Accused himself called on 100 number. On 08.09.2016, he joined the investigation in the present matter with IO SI Kunal Kishore. Post mortem of deceased was conducted at MAMC mortuary and thereafter, the dead body was handed over to legal heirs of deceased, pursuant to which they came back to PS and IO recorded his statement. The witness correctly identified the accused during his testimony before the Court. He also correctly identified the offending vehicle and cycle of victim from the nine photographs Ex. PX1 (colly) as the ones clicked by him. He also identified the offending vehicle through photographs Ex. PW2/A1 to A6.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, the witness deposed that he was on day duty on the day of incident and was alone at that time. He further deposed that he was not an eye witness to the incident. He further deposed that he noticed the condition of the vehicles at the spot and at that time the bicycle was lying under the offending vehicle i.e Innova Car. He denied the suggestion that the offending vehicle Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:18:33 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 11 of 23 did not hit the bicycle and did not cause the present incident. He deposed that he was about 150 meters away from the spot. He further deposed that at that time, accused, injured, above said vehicles and public persons were present at the spot and that he asked public persons about the incident but they refused to join as witness to the said incident. He further deposed that he did not have the mobile with which he clicked the photographs and that he also could not produce the same due to lapse of time of 5 years. He denied the suggestion that the said photographs were manipulated and therefore, he could not produce the said mobile. He also denied the suggestion that he did not click any photograph. He also denied the suggestion that accused was passing through the area and in good gesture only made a call at 100 number. He deposed that HC Sohan Pal may have come to the spot after about 15 minutes of receiving the call. He admitted that there was traffic signal near the zebra crossing. He deposed that he did not remember whether the said traffic signal was working or not at that time. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
15. This is the entire evidence on case record.
16. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt as the complainant and other prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case against the accused.
17. Per contra, Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that prosecution has examined only one eye witness i.e., PW2/ complainant Niranjan Kumar in support of Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:18:40 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 12 of 23 its version and he being an interested witness, i.e., brother of deceased, his testimony cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, it is submitted that case of prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubts and it is a fit case where the accused is entitled to acquittal.
18. I have given a considered thought to the rival submissions made by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for accused keeping in view the material available on the judicial file.
19. The first question which arises for consideration before the Court is as to whether the alleged accident actually took place and if the answer is in affirmative, then whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident or not.
Ld. Defence Counsel submits that the accident had already occurred when the accused reached the spot. He has further submitted that the accused stopped his vehicle on humanitarian ground and made a call to 100 number and tried to help the deceased.
Upon perusal of the testimony of accused, it emerges that the accused has not disputed his presence at the spot nor that of the offending vehicle though he has alleged that he reached the spot pursuant to the accident having occurred. It is pertinent to note that the accused has been identified by complainant/ eye witness Niranjan who is examined as PW2 as being the one who caused the death of his brother Mohit by driving the offending vehicle at a high speed uncontrollably and in a rash and negligent manner. PW2 has categorically deposed that on 05.09.2016 at Digitally signed SHIVLI by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:18:47 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 13 of 23 about 11.00 AM, he along with his brother Mohit were going to Civil Lines from Monesty Market and they were crossing the road on zebra crossing on foot from the side of Monesty Market to other side. He crossed the road while holding the bicycle by his hand and his brother was still crossing the road and one Innova car bearing registration No. HR ___ 8382 was coming from the side of Chandgi Ram Akhara in high speed. The said Innova car hit against his brother Mohit due to which he sustained injuries on his head and became unconscious at the spot. PCR van took his brother to Trauma Centre Hospital and he handed over driver of said Innova car namely, Vikram Kumar to the police. He further deposed that police recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A and site plan Ex. PW2/B was prepared at his instance. He further deposed that the cycle was seized by police vide seizure memo Ex. PW2/C and accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D. He further deposed that the present incident was caused due to the high speed rash and negligent driving in uncontrolled manner by the accused driver Vikram Kumar which could have been avoided if accused would have applied brakes. Thus, the deposition of complainant coupled with the fact that accused was apprehended on the spot by PW2 and he is also a witness to the arrest of accused goes on to establish beyond reasonable doubt the presence and involvement of accused in the alleged accident and establishes the identification of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
20. Having decided so, the only question which remains to be decided by this Court is whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and if the answer is in affirmative, Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:18:54 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 14 of 23 whether the death of deceased was a result of his rash and negligent driving.
21. Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to discuss the essential ingredients of offences u/s 279/304A IPC and the position of law on the subject.
In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 279/ 304A IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients:
Section 279: That the accused was driving the vehicle in a 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.
Section 304A: That the death of deceased has been caused due to rash or negligent driving of accused not amounting to culpable homicide.
In order to prove its case, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove not only that the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident, but also that it was being driven with rashness and negligence on the part of the accused which resulted in death of the deceased.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 72 defined the term "rash and negligent driving". It was held that:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty 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 SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:19:03 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 15 of 23 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 caution".
In Niranjan Singh Vs State (Delhi Administration), 1997 Cri LJ 336, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that, "Thus, the main criterion for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard to the obligation of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a risk indifference as to the harmful consequences resulting from it. In a case of this nature, the test is whether the prosecution has proved that:-
(i) the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person who might happen to be using the road or of doing substantial damage to the property;
(ii) in driving the vehicle in that manner the accused did so without having given any thought to the possibility of there being any such risk or, having recognized that there was some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it; and Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR SHIVLI Date:
TALWAR 2022.04.29
17:19:11
+0530
FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 16 of 23
(iii) the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased."
22. Now, the stage is set to apply the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the present case and the testimony of complainant/ eye witness i.e., PW2 Niranjan is the most relevant for proving the rashness and negligence on part of the accused. PW2/ complainant Niranjan who is the eye witness to the present incident has specifically deposed the date, time and place of incident, which is in consonance with the contents of FIR. During his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, he deposed that there was a traffic signal at the spot of incident and they were crossing the road on zebra crossing and the red signal was on while they were crossing the road. He further deposed that the traffic light was red when his brother was hit by the offending vehicle and it turned green after three minutes.
23. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that PW2/ complainant being the brother of deceased is an interested witness and thus, his testimony cannot be relied upon. It has further been argued that no independent public witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution have been examined by the prosecution which proves fatal to the case of prosecution.
This Court finds no force in the said contention of Ld. Defence Counsel as it is settled law that it is not necessary that in each and every case, public witnesses must be joined. In the case of Appabhai Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-
"It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:19:20 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 17 of 23 independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused."
Reference is also made to the case of State of U.P. Vs. Samman Dass 1972 AIR (SC) 677, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that relationship between the parties is not a sufficient ground to discredit testimony of prosecution witnesses.
It is also pertinent to note that it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:19:27 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 18 of 23 The Hon'ble 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 UnderSection 134of 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera V State of Odisha, 2017 SCC Online Supreme Court 1336, observed 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."
In Namdeo V State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 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 SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:19:34 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 19 of 23 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 Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:
"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 coviction. 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."
In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that when the testimony of PW2/ complainant Niranjan is completely reliable and consistent and his testimony has not been impeached by the defence during his cross-examination, non-examination of any independent witness is by no stretch of imagination fatal to the case of prosecution.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the contentions of Ld. Defence Digitally signed by SHIVLI SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:19:41 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 20 of 23 Counsel stand nullified.
25. The next requirement regarding death of deceased Mohit having been caused as a result of road accident also stands proved as accused has admitted the MLC and Post Mortem Report of deceased Ex. P7 and PA respectively under section 294 Cr.P.C. and hence these documents stand proved.
26. In the present case, PW2/ complainant Niranjan is the most material witness. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution on material aspects. The evidence of the said witness has remained unimpeached throughout his cross-examination. His evidence is natural and consistent and to the point. The accused has been duly identified by the prosecution witnesses during their testimony before the Court. In view of the same, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW2. There is no reason as to why the complainant would make false allegations against the accused while allowing the real culprit to go scot free, more so when it is not the case of defence that there was any animosity between the complainant and accused.
27. It is also pertinent to note that PW8 ASI Sanjeev Kumar, during his testimony before the Court deposed that on 05.09.2016 at about 11.00 AM, he was present for his duty at Beat Monesty Market, Outer Ring Road and when he was patrolling at the footpath near Gareeb Gaushala, he noticed the traffic jam near the Monesty Market Gate zebra crossing, pursuant to which he went there and found out that one Innova car had hit against one cycle and he took photographs of the spot from his mobile phone. During SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:19:50 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 21 of 23 his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he deposed that even though he is not an eye witness to the present incident, he noticed the condition of the vehicles at the spot and at that time, the bicycle was lying under the offending vehicle i.e. Innova car. He further deposed that in order to ease the traffic, he got the said Innova car and cycle removed from the spot and stationed near the footpath. He informed the PS and Duty officer informed him that call regarding the incident had already been received and IO HC Sohan Pal along with Ct. Kashmir had already left for the spot. The said police officer reached the spot and he handed over the accused Vikram Kumar driver of Innova car bearing registration No. HR26CR8382 to the IO.
28. The perusal of mechanical inspection reports of the victim vehicle as well as the the offending vehicle wherein the Mechanical Inspector has mentioned that there were fresh damages on both the vehicles and front bumper of the offending vehicle was broken and dislocated from the right side as well as the photographs Ex. PX1 (colly) which show the victim vehicle lying below the offending vehicle and both the vehicles in a damaged condition, further goes on to establish that the death of deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the accused.
29. In light of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt to the effect that accused Vikram Kumar was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration no. HR-26CR-8382 in a rash and negligent manner which resulted in the death of deceased Mohit, not amounting to culpable SHIVLI Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR TALWAR Date: 2022.04.29 17:19:58 +0530 FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 22 of 23 homicide.
30. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, all the ingredients of Sections 279/304A IPC are satisfied. Thus, accused Vikram Kumar is convicted for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC.
Let the accused be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to convict.
Digitally signed by SHIVLI TALWAR SHIVLI Date:
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TALWAR 2022.04.29
17:20:04
on : 29.04.2022 +0530
(SHIVLI TALWAR)
MM-06(C)/THC/Delhi/29.04.2022
FIR No. 224/2016 PS Civil Lines State Vs Vikram Kumar Page No. 23 of 23