Delhi District Court
State vs Sunil Tanwar on 10 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, JMFC-08, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI CNR No. : DLSW02-033587-2021 ID. No. : 8190/2021 FIR No. : 495/2020 U/s : 279/337 IPC P.S. : Uttam Nagar State v/s Sunil Tanwar a) Name & address of the : Sh. Harvinder Singh complainant s/o Sh. Ajeet Singh b) Name & address of :Sunil Tanwar accused s/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad R/o P-3/225, Gali no. 09, Dayal Park, West Sagarpur, Near Bharat Ghar, Sagarpur, Delhi. c) Date of Commission of : 25.05.2020 offence d) Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. f) Final Order : Acquitted. g) Date of Institution : 30.07.2021 h) Judgment Pronounced on : 10.02.2026 JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.05.2020 at about 8:45 PM, accused Sunil Tanwar was driving a cluster bus bearing registration no. DL 1 PD 4843 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and when complainant Sh. Harvinder Singh was deboarding the bus, accused Sunil State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 1 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 Tanwar suddenly started moving the bus because of which complainant's right leg came under the tyre of the bus and complainant received simple injury on his person. An FIR bearing no. 495/2021 was registered at PS Uttam Nagar u/s 279/337 IPC. Investigation of the case was conducted by IO ASI Ram Tek and thereafter by HC Hazari Lal.
Proceedings before the Court
2. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s 279/337 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') was filed against the accused Sunil Tanwar. After taking cognizance of the offences, the accused was summoned to face trial.
3. On his appearance, a copy of chargesheet along with documents was supplied to the accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter 'CrPC'). On finding prima facie case against the accused, a notice under section 279/337 IPC was framed against him, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW-1 Harvinder deposed that at the time of incident, he was employed as a welding worker. On the day of incident, at around 8.15 am, he was going to Shiv Vihar in the offending vehicle vide route no. 153 Cluster Bus from his home. At around 8.45 am, when all the passengers were deboarding at the final State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 2 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 bus stop, he also deboarded the bus from the front gate of the bus. In the meantime, accused moved the bus in the reverse direction due to which his right leg came under the tyre of the bus. He received injuries in the present incident due to which his two fingers of the foot got amputated. Thereafter, he was taken to DDU Hospital where his MLC was done vide no. 3817. From there, he was referred to Safdarjang Hospital where his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded by the IO. The accused was arrested and searched in his presence vide memo Ex. PW1/B and Ex. PW1/C. IO also recorded his statement U/s 161 CrPC. The photographs of the offending vehicle (Ex. P-1 (colly)) were shown to PW-1 and same were correctly identified by him. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(ii) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-1 Harvinder deposed that he did not have any proof to show that he was working in welding shop. He did not provide his travel ticket pertaining to the day of incident. He volunteered to add that he was severely injured and was not in a condition to do all the formalities. He deposed that there is a bus stop at the place of incident and that there is no red light at the place of incident. Police recorded his statement on the day of incident at DDU Hospital. Later on, his statement was recorded State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 3 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 at Safdarjang Hospital on the same day. He did not remember whether his statement was recorded by the police at police station and whether the accused was arrested by the police. He did not have any pass or permit to go outside during the Covid period. The witness stated that he visited the police station thrice regarding the present case and all the three times, his statement was recorded by the police. He did not remember the exact date of visiting the police station regarding the present case. Police did not provide him the copy of any of his statement. Police had explained to him the contents of his complaint Ex. PW1/A and his other statement U/s 161 CrPC. He denied the suggestion that he was never traveling in the offending vehicle driven by the accused or that he have filed the false present case against the accused in conspiracy with the accused in order to extort money from the accused.
(iii) PW-2 ASI Sher Singh deposed that on 25.05.2020, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as Head Constable. On that day, IO ASI Ramtek received DD no. 17A and thereafter, he along-with IO reached at the spot i.e. 863, Bus Stand, Shiv Vihar, JJ Colony. On reaching the spot, they found one cluster bus bearing no. DL1PD-4843 in accidental condition. On inquiry, they came to know that injured has already been sent to the hospital. Thereafter, IO left State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 4 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 the spot for the hospital and he remained at the spot. IO went to the hospital where he recorded the statement of the injured and again came back at the spot. IO prepared the site plan of the place of accident and prepared tehrir which was handed over to this witness for registration of FIR. Accordingly, this witness left the spot for the registration of FIR. PW-2 again came back at the spot along-with original tehrir and same were handed over to the IO. Thereafter, case property was deposited in Malkahana. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(iv) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-2 ASI Sher Singh deposed that after receiving the DD entry by the IO they left the police station. He did not see the contents of above- mentioned DD. He reached at the spot at about 9.15 to 9.30 am and thereafter, he left the spot along-with original rukka at about 5.45 pm. On reaching the spot he met public persons who were standing nearby the spot. Public persons informed them that the above-mentioned bus caused the accident. IO did not record the statement of the independent public person at the spot in his presence. This witness was sitting in the bus, when IO left the spot for the hospital. IO left the spot at about 10.30 am and returned back to the spot at about 5.00 pm. The State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 5 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 distance between the spot and bus stand was about 200-250 meter. There was no bus stand at the place of incident. IO prepared the rukka while sitting on the motorcycle which was parked nearby the spot. After seeing the rukka, this witness deposed that no alteration was done after it was prepared by the IO. At that time, injured was not present at the spot. This witness denied the suggestion that false case has been registered against the accused or that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
(v) PW-3 ASI Ramtek deposed that on 25.05.2020, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as ASI. On that day, he received the DD no. 17A and thereafter, he along- with HC Sher Singh reached at the spot i.e. 863, Bus Stand, Shiv Vihar, JJ Colony. On reaching the spot, they found one cluster bus bearing no. DL1PD-4843 in accidental condition. On inquiry, they came to know that the injured has already been sent to the hospital. Thereafter, he left the spot for the hospital and HC Sher Singh remained at the spot. He went to the hospital where he recorded the statement of the injured Ex. PW1/A and again came back at the spot. He prepared the site plan of the place of accident which is Ex. PW3/A and prepared tehrir which is Ex. PW3/B which was handed over to HC Sher Singh for the registration of FIR. Accordingly, HC Sher Singh left the spot for registration of FIR. HC State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 6 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 Sher Singh again came back at the spot along-with original tehrir and same were handed over to this witness. Thereafter, this witness seized the vehicle bearing on. DL1PD4843 vide seizure memo Ex.PW- 3/C. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(vi) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-3 ASI Ramtek deposed that he reached at the spot at around 9.00 am. After seeing the site plan Ex. PW3/A, the witness was questioned whether the word 'bus stop' is mentioned in the site plan to which witness stated that point A is bus stand. He denied the suggestion that he never went to the spot and he never prepared the site plan and due to same, the word 'bus stop' is not mentioned in the site plan. He further deposed that on 25.05.2020, he prepared the seizure memo Ex. PW3/C. He further deposed that he did not remember on which date he took the seizure memo Ex. PW3/C from the Malkhana. This witness admitted that he prepared Ex. PW3/C after the last date of hearing, after seeing the copy of the seizure memo which was deposited in the Malkhana. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW3/C was forged and fabricated. He recorded the statement of injured at DDU Hospital on 25.05.2020. At the time of the recording of statement of injured, no other police official was State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 7 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 present with him. He further denied the suggestion that no statement of injured was taken by him at DDU Hospital or that Ex. PW1/A was forged and fabricated. Ex. PW3/A was prepared at around 10.00 a.m. He admitted that the site plan on record was the same site plan which was prepared by him at the spot and that the victim had not provided him any document of his traveling in the offending vehicle. He further denied the suggestion that no such alleged incident was ever happened and the accused was falsely implicated in the present case by him at the instance of injured.
(vii) PW-4 HC Kuldeep deposed that on 25.05.2020, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as MHC(M). On the directions of IO namely ASI Ram Tek, he collected the case property i.e., bus bearing No. DL1PD-4843 along-with copy of seizure memo and other relevant documents. Same were deposited in the malkhana by ASI Ramtek and entry with respect to the same was made at serial no. 4942 in register no.19 (ExPW4/A). This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite been given opportunity for the same.
(viii) PW-5 ASI Hazari Lal deposed that on 26.09.2020, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Uttam Nagar. On that day, upon the directions of SHO PS Uttam Nagar, he was marked the investigation of the State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 8 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 present case. He served notice upon accused Sunil Tanwar u/s 41A CrPC and called him to the police station. The accused Sunil Tanwar came to the police station and this witness interrogated him and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/A. The complainant Harvinder also came to the police station to enquire about the present case and he identified the accused Sunil Tanwar as the person who had caused accident. PW-5 arrested and personally searched him vide memos already ExPW1/B and ExPW1/C respectively and released him on bail. During further investigation, PW-5 got verified the insurance documents of above said bus and got completed the MLC of victim. After completion of investigation, this witness had filed the chargesheet against the accused. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
(ix) During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW-5 ASI Hazari Lal admitted that he had not collected any proof with respect to the fact that the complainant was traveling in the bus as mentioned in his examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that the document Ex. PW5/A is false and fabricated or that he had taken signature of the accused on blank paper. He further denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 9 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 implicated by him in connivance with the complainant.
5. Accused had admitted the genuineness of FIR No. 495/2020, certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, mechanical inspection report dated 27.05.2020, MLC No. 3817 of 2020 dated 25.05.2020, X-ray requisition form for MLC and DD No. 17A dated 25.05.2020, u/s 294 CrPC. The above-mentioned documents were exhibited as Ex. A- 1, Ex. A-2, Ex. A-3, Ex. A-4, Ex. A-5 and Ex. A-6 respectively.
6. The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed and the statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded wherein all the incriminating evidence appearing on record against the accused was put to him but he denied the same and submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated. The accused opted to not lead any defence evidence.
7. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the matter.
8. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that on the basis of statement of the victim and other prosecution witness as well as the documents appearing on record the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sunil Tanwar was driving a cluster bus on a public way rashly and negligently so as to endanger human life and State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 10 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 because of that, he moved the bus suddenly and right leg of complainant came under the tyre of the bus, due to which he sustained simple injury on his person and, therefore, the accused is guilty of offence punishable u/s 279/337 IPC.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution has not placed on record any material to show that accused had reversed the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving, he had caused injury to the victim. It is thus, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and, therefore, he be acquitted for the offence charged.
Findings of the Court
10. It is a well settled principle of criminal law, that the burden of proof is on the prosecution and it has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11. Ld. Counsel for the accused has next argued that the prosecution has failed to place any material on record to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, therefore, since the same State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 11 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 has not been proved, the accused deserves to be acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 279 IPC.
12. I have given my thoughts to the above contention. In order to prove the guilt of accused for offence u/s 279 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The provision u/s 279 IPC is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"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."
13. Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in judgment titled Badri Prasad Tiwari vs The State, 1994 CRI LJ 389 has observed that there are two essential ingredients of section 279 IPC. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
The essential ingredients of Section 279 are:
(i) Rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way.
(ii) The act must be such as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any person.
14. Thus, in order to constitute an offence under section 279 IPC, it must be established that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way in a rash and negligent manner to State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 12 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 endanger human life or to likely cause hurt or injury to any other person.
15. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgment titled Abdul Subhan vs State (NCT of Delhi), 133 (2006) DLT 562, has clarified the meaning of rashness and negligence. The relevant portion of the said judgment runs as follows:
"Rashness conveys the idea of doing a reckless act without considering any of its consequences whereas negligence connotes want of proper care."
16. Thus, in view of the above observation given by the Hon'ble Superior Courts, this Court has to examine whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused had reversed his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and while doing so, he had hit against the victim and caused simple hurt on his person.
17. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant/ victim has not stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The complainant has stated in his examination-in-chief that when he deboarded the bus along with other passengers at the final bus stop, accused reversed the offending vehicle due to which his right leg came under the tyre of the bus and two fingers of his foot got amputated. Thus, the complainant has neither stated that the accused was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner nor has he mentioned the manner of driving of vehicle by the accused State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 13 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 which would have helped this Court to come to a conclusion whether the accused had reversed the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, statement of PW-1 Harvinder (the complainant) does not help the prosecution to prove that accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No other eye- witness has been examined by the prosecution or any material has been placed on record to prove the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of any material on record, in the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
18.Thus, in view of the above discussion and keeping in mind the fact that no independent witness has been examined and the prosecution has not brought any material on record to show that accused was reversing the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Sunil Tanwar was driving the vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1PD 4843 in a rash and negligent manner and while so driving, he had hit against victim Harvinder Singh and caused grievous hurt on his person. Accused Sunil Tanwar s/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad is, therefore, acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 279/337 IPC.
19.As per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled 'Manojbhai Jethabhai Parmar (Rohit) v/s State of State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 14 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No(s). 2973 of 2023, (2025 INSC 1433) dated 15.12.2025, the charts for witnesses examined, exhibited documents (including admitted documents) and material objects are attached as Appendix A, B and C respectively and run as follows:
Appendix A Chart of Witnesses Prosecution Name of witness Description Witness No. PW-1 Harvinder Complainant/ victim PW-2 ASI Sher Singh Visited the spot alongwith IO.
PW-3 ASI Ramtek IO
PW-4 HC Kuldeep MHCM
PW-5 ASI Hazari Lal Second IO
Appendix B
Chart of Exhibited Documents (including admitted documents) Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ Attested by Ex. PW-1/A Statement of complainant PW-1 recorded by IO Ex. PW-1/B Arrest memo of accused PW-1 Ex. PW-1/C Personal search memo of PW-1 accused Ex. PW-3/A Site plan PW-3 State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 15 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021 Ex. PW-3/B Tehrir PW-3 Ex. PW-3/C Seizure memo of vehicle as PW-3 well as documents relating to vehicle bearing No. DL-
1PD-4843.
Ex. PW-4/A Entry at serial No. 4942 in PW-4
register no.19
Ex. PW-5/A Disclosure statement of PW-5
accused
Ex. A-1 FIR No. 495/2020 Admitted
document
Ex. A-2 Certificate U/s 65 B of Admitted
Indian Evidence Act document
Ex. A-3 Mechanical Inspection Admitted
Report dated 27.05.2020 document
Ex. A-4 MLC No. 3817 of 2020 Admitted
dated 25.05.2020 document
Ex. A-5 X ray requisition form for Admitted
MLC. document
Ex. A-6 DD No. 17A dated Admitted
25.05.2020. document
Appendix C
Chart of Material Objects/ Muddamals Material/ Description of the Exhibit Proved by/ object No. Attested by Ex. P-1 (colly) Photographs of offending PW-1 vehicle PW-2 PW-3 State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 16 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021
20. This judgment contains 17 pages and the same has been pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and each page bears my signatures.
21.Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
Digitally signed by DEEKSHA ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DEEKSHA SETHI SETHI Date:
TODAY, i.e., ON 10.02.2026 2026.02.10 16:12:38 +0530 Deeksha Sethi Judicial Magistrate First Class-08 South-West District/New Delhi 10.02.2026 State v/s Sunil Tanwar Page 17 of 17 Cr. Case No.8190/2021