Delhi District Court
State vs . Satbir Singh @ Monu on 15 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. JITENDER: METROPOITAN MAGISTRATE01 :
NORTH : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI.
STATE VS. SATBIR SINGH @ MONU
FIR Number : 540/2011
Under Section : 279/338 IPC nd 146/196
and 39/192 MV Act
Police Station : Narela
JUDGMENT
a) Registration no. of case : 5286177/2016.
b) Name & address of the : ASI Dharampal
complainant. No. 1780/D
PS Narela
c) Name & address of : Satbir Singh @ Monu
accused S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan
R/o H. No. 349, Village Ghoga,
Delhi110039
d) Date of Commission of : 24.10.2011
offence
e) Offence complained of : U/S 279/338 IPC and 146/196
and 39/192 MV Act
f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 1 of 30
g) Final Order : Convicted
Date of Institution : 30.06.2012
Judgment Pronounced on : 15.09.2022
JUDGMENT
Brief facts:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 24/10/2011 at about 10:20 AM at Ghoga Road, near electric pole No. SL 57539/31, Narela, Delhi, (hereinafter the "spot" or "the place of accident") one motorcycle bearing Registration No. HR 34 ADL0056 (hereinafter the "offending vehicle") driven at a public road, without insurance as well as without registration certificate, fitness certificate and sale letter, in a manner so rash and negligent so as to endanger to human life and personal safety of other and hit against a motorcycle registration No. DL8SND7865 and as a result of which the motorcyclist namely Sunil sustained injuries. The present FIR No. 540/2011, was registered under section 279/338 IPC & under section 146/196 & 39/192 MV Act on the complaint of ASI Dharampal.
2. On the basis of the investigation carried out by the police, chargesheet was filed under section 173 Cr.P.C in the court on 30/06/2012 and chargesheet and other relevant document were supplied to the accused in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C to the satisfaction of the accused.
3. Notice for committing the offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC and under section 146/196 & 39/192 MV Act was served upon the accused on FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 2 of 30 14/08/2014 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for PE.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 4.1 PW1 Pramod stated that, the incident occurred in the year 2011. On 24/10/2011, in the morning, at about 10:15 AM, he along with Satbir @ Monu was going to Ghoga More on motorcycle, the No. he does not remember. Satbir @ Monu was driving the motorcycle. At about 10:20 AM, when they reached in front of Ghoga dairy, one motorcycle (No. he does not remember) came from the side of Ghoga More and hit against their motorcycle. Due to this, they fell down on the road. He could not see the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the motorcycle.
Ld. APP for the state seek permission from the court to cross examine the witness since he is resiling from his previous statement and such request was allowed by the court. Photographs mark A to A5 were shown to the witness who correctly identified the photographs and deposed that these photographs are of the spot and it reflected their motorcycle in photographs mark A3 and A5 and other motorcycle reflected in the photographs mark A2 and A4. The accused was correctly identified by the PW1 who was present in the court during the recording of evidence. PW1 further recited that actually on that day, he was the pillion rider and he along with the accused Satbir were going towards Ghoga Mod from their house. Accused Satbir was driving the motorcycle in extreme highspeed and he hit against one another motorcycle No. DL8SND7865. The accident caused due to the rash driving of the accused Satbir as he was in extreme high speed and he could not apply brakes due to that speed. After that they fell down and he sustained severe injuries.
FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 3 of 30He lost his consciousness and he could not see the face and the condition of the rider of other motorcycle. Meanwhile, his brother Narender came from the backside in his car and he took them in the hospital. Later on, his statement was recorded.
This witness was duly crossexamined by the accused after allowing an application filed under section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused and same was allowed vide order dated 16/03/2022. PW1 stated that he and accused namely Satbir Singh @ Monu are residing in the same village Ghoga, Delhi. On the day of incident, accused himself offered lift to him to sit on the back to reach Ghogha mor. The road on which accident occurred is about 20 feet wide (one way road). The incident was occurred at about 10 to 10:15 AM. He became unconscious when he falls down on the road. He gain his consciousness after 7 and a half days. Accused Satbir Singh @ Monu did not sustain grievous injury. Two police official took him to the M.V. hospital for medical treatment, he was not fully conscious but he could see who were took him to the hospital. At the time of accident, he and accused were not wearing the helmet. He used to drive a taxi to till the date of incident. He used to earn approximately 15 to 16 thousand as salary.
4.2 PW2 Sunil stated that the incident occurred on 24/10/2011. On the day of incident, he was going to village Ghoga at about 10:15 AM on his TVS Apache motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8SND7865. When he reached 1 km before village Ghoga on the road, one motorcycle bearing No. HR34A0056 came from the front side at a highspeed in rash and negligent manner and hit against his motorcycle. There were 2 boys on the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle No. HR 34A0056 and the driver of the motorcycle was driving on the wrong side. Due to the accident he fell on the road and became unconscious. He had seen the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Accused Satbir Singh @ Monu were FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 4 of 30 driving the aforesaid motorcycle at the time of accident. He had sustained severe injuries due to the accident. His friends also came there. Police officer came and took him to the hospital. On the same day, he became unconscious and could not see the face or the condition of the rider of other motorcycle. and IO recorded his statement. He had shown the place of accident to IO and IO prepared site plan at his instance and the same is Ex. PW2/A. After some days, he went to the PS and identified the accused Satbir Singh @ Monu. IO arrested the accused and also conducted his personal search which is Ex. PW2/B and PW2/C bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his statement. 5 photographs mark A1 to A5 were placed on record and same was shown to the witness who correctly identifies his own motorcycle and the offending vehicle.
This witness was duly crossexamined by the accused after allowing an application filed under section 311 Cr.P.C. moved by Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused and same was allowed vide order dated 16/03/2022. He stated that while the accident was occurred, he became unconscious. He know that his friends and police official took him to the hospital for medical treatment. Police officials recorded the statement of his friends. He does not remember the name of his friends. Police officials recorded his statement at hospital as well as at police station. He had visited the police station many times. Police officials did not take photographs of accidental motorcycle and offending vehicle in his presence. There is blind spot at the place where the accident was occurred. He had received ₹ 40,000 in cash in MACT case no. 4951/16 in the Hon'ble court, MACT2, Rohini, North dated 26/07/2017.
LD. APP for the state seeks permission from the Hon'ble court to reexamination of the witness on the point of identification of the accused. Same FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 5 of 30 is allowed by the court and he stated that accused Satbir Singh @ Monu is present in the court and correctly identified by the witness.
4.3 PW3 Dharamender stated that IO served him notice under section 133 MV Act on 30/03/2012 and inquired about motorcycle No. HR34A0056, Yamaha RX 100. On which, he replied that he had purchased aforesaid motorcycle from Neeraj S/o Rajender R/o village Ghoga. After about one month, he sold the said bike to Satbir S/o Jai Bhagwan is also the resident of the same village Ghoga. The notice under section 133 MV Act with his reply is Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at point A. IO recorded his statement.
This witness was not crossexamined by the accused despite opportunity given.
4.4 PW4 Ct. Vaibhav stated that on 24/10/2011 he was posted as constable at PS Narela. On that day he was on emergency duty from 8 AM to 8 PM. On receipt of No. 34B dated 24/10/2011, he along with IO ASI Dharampal went to the spot, where they found no eyewitness, however, two motorcycle were lying on the road opposite to each other. Registration No. of said motorcycle were HR34A 0056 and DL8SND7865. After deploying him at the spot, IO ASI Dharampal went to MB hospital. After sometime, IO came back to the spot. Thereafter, IO took the photographs of the spot from his mobile phone. Thereafter he prepared the Rukka and sent it to the PS for registration of FIR through him. He went to PS and got FIR registered and came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original Rukka to IO. Thereafter IO seized both motorcycle vide seizure memos Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter both the motorcycles were taken to PS in a rehri. IO recorded his statement. 5 photographs of the above FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 6 of 30 said motorcycles were shown to the witness who correctly identified the vehicles.
This witness was not crossexamined by the accused despite opportunity.
4.5 PW5 HC Navratan stated that on 24/10/2011 he was posted as head constable at PS Narela. On that day, he was working as duty officer from 4 PM to 12 midnight. At about 4:20 PM, constable Vaibav handed over to him original Rukka sent by ASI Dharampal, on the basis of which, he got registered the present FIR through the computers installed at PS Narela while using specially designed software which does not allow correction or alteration once the information is fed into the same. The said computers were being used for the purpose of registration of FIR in the normal course of activities being carried out at PS and the same were under his lawful control. Ex. PW5/A bearing his signature at point A is computer generated printout based upon the said FIR and nothing had happened during that period effecting the correctness and accuracy of the information so entered and fed into the computer. After registration of FIR, he made endorsement on the Rukka, which is Ex. PW5/B. He had taken an additional printout of the FIR and retained the same to be annexed in the registered meant for recording of FIR.
This witness was not crossexamined by the accused.
4.6 PW6 Shri Nand Lal stated that he is the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8 SND7865 which he got released on superdari from the Hon'ble court vide superdarinama Ex. PW6/A bearing signature at point A. He further stated that he has not produced the motorcycle as same has been stolen the photographs of the motorcycle are already on record which are Mark A4 and A5.
FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 7 of 30This witness was not crossexamined by the accused.
4.7 PW7 Retd. ASI Devender Kumar stated that on 29/10/2011 he had conducted the mechanical inspection of the vehicle No. DL 8 SND 7865 and motorcycle bearing No. HR 34A 0056 on the request of ASI Dharampal. During his inspection of the vehicle No. DL 8 SND 7865, he found that front wheel mudguard damaged, front both shocker bended handle system damaged, head light left side speedometer damaged, front No. plate damaged, left side body scratched and left side leg guard bended. Engine, brakes, horn were okay. The vehicle was not fit for road test. His detailed report along with the request of IO is Ex. PW7/A bearing his signature at point A. Witness further stated that during his inspection of motorcycle bearing No. HR 34A 0056, he found left side footrest and gear lever were broken, engine both side cover broken, petrol tank dented from left side, headlight and speedometer damaged, handle damaged, clutch lever damaged, left side body scratched, rear No. plate broken and engine system damaged. Brake system and horn were okay. The vehicle was not fit for the road test. His detailed report is Ex. PW7/B bearing his signature at point A. This witness was not crossexamined by the accused.
4.8 PW8 W/Ct. Mamta stated that on 24/10/2011, she was posted as constable at PS Narela. On that day, she was working as a DD writer and her duty hours from 8 AM to 4 PM. On that day, at about 10:26 AM, she received information by wireless operator regarding an accident at Ghoga Mor, Narela and one injured is also lying there. She reduced the same into writing in the rojnamcha registered at serial No. 34B. She has brought the original rojnamcha register having DD No. 34 B. The copy of DD entry is already on record and the same is exhibited as Ex.
FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 8 of 30PW8/A. This witness was not crossexamined by the accused.
4.9 PW9 Dr. Saurabh Kumar stated that he is specialist surgeon in the MV Hospital since year 2002. He is deputed to identify the signature of Dr Kumar Saurabh Gaur, SR surgery by MS M.V. hospital. He can identify the handwriting and signature of Dr Kumar Saurabh Gaur as he has worked with him and he has seen writing and signing the documents in the normal course of business. He further stated that on 24/10/2011, one patient namely Pramod was referred to Dr Kumar Saurabh Gaur by medical officer on duty Dr N.S. Khurana. Dr Kumar Saurabh Gaur had examined the patient and gave his finding on MLC exhibited as Ex. PW9/A bearing signature Dr Kumar Saurabh Gaur at point A. He further stated that, on the same day, one more patient namely Satbir was referred to Dr. Kumar Saurabh Gaur by medical officer on duty Dr N.S. Khurana. Dr Kumar Saurabh Gaur had examined the patient and gave his finding on MLC exhibited as Ex. PW9/B bearing signature Dr Kumar Saurabh Gaur at point A. This witness was not crossexamined by the accused.
4.10 PW10 Retd. ASI Dharampal stated that on 24/10/2011 he was posted as ASI at PS Narela. He received DD No. 34B. He took Constable Vaibhav in the investigation and went to Ghoga Mor and after reaching there at pole of electricity No. 51439/31 and in front of the pole two motorcycle in accidental condition were lying. The broken glasses were scattered there. He could not found any eyewitness at the spot. He came to know that the accused has been taken to M.V. hospital. He left the constable at the spot and he went to the hospital and after reaching there he received MLC No. 4269, 70, 71. On the MLC the injured were FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 9 of 30 declared fit to record their statement. No injured gave their statement and there was no eyewitness in the hospital. Thereafter he returned to the spot and after observing the seeing he prepared the tehrir on the DD entry. The tehrir is Ex. PW 10/A bearing his signature at point A. He sent constable Vaibhav to register the FIR and constable Vaibhav returned to the spot after getting registered the FIR and handed over the copy of FIR to him. He clicked the photographs of the spot from his mobile phone and prepared the site plan which is already Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A. He took the motorcycle in his possession and prepared their seizure memos which is Ex. PW4/A and PW4/B bearing his signature at point B respectively. Thereafter both the motorcycle were taken to the PS by keeping them in one thela and deposited the same in the PS Malkhana. He recorded the statement of witnesses. On 29/10/2011 he recorded the statement of injured Sunil and he took injured at the spot and pointed out the place of incident. Both the vehicle were got mechanically inspected vide his request vide Ex. PW 10/B bearing at point A. Thereafter enquired about the owner of motorcycle, bearing No. HR 34A 0056. Upon enquiry accused Satbir told that he had purchased the vehicle from one person Dharmender. Dharmender told that he had purchased the motorcycle from Neeraj. Dharmender produced one photo copy of RC and the same was verified from Chandigarh and the same was found in the name of Govind Rajpoot. Upon enquiry Govind Rajpoot told that he had sold the same to Neeraj but the original RC was not transferred. These person did not produced the original RC. He gave notice to all of them which is Ex. PW 10/C, Ex. PW10/D and Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at point A respectively and their statement were recorded. He obtained the result of MLC. In the all three MLC the injuries were shown to be as grievous injuries. He gave notice to accused Satbir Singh under section 91 Cr.P.C. and in the reply he told that neither he has the RC nor insurance. He added section 146/196 MV Act. Thereafter the accused was arrested on FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 10 of 30 05/04/2012 and prepared the arrest memo which is Ex. PW2/B bearing his signature at point B. The arrest was made at the instance of witness namely Sunil and he was also personally searched which is Ex. PW2/C bearing his signature at point B. He recorded statement of witnesses. He also prepared the seizure of DL of accused person and the same is Ex. PW10/D bearing his signature at point A. Photographs of offending vehicle, damaged motorcycle and the spot were shown to the witness and he correctly identified all of them.
This witness was duly crossexamined by the accused and he stated that he received information at about 10:26 AM about the incident. In the aforesaid information which was registered under DD No. 34B registration No. of vehicle not mentioned. He clicked the photographs of the accidental vehicle from his personal mobile phone however he did not deposit his said mobile phone for inspection purpose. He did not remember the specification of his mobile phone. At that time he had the bill of mobile phone but he had not placed same on court records. He had no instruction to give the certificate under section 65B evidence act regarding the phone. He was not aware as to who took the injured to the hospital. He met them in the hospital. On the next day he visited MV hospital and he had not found complainant in the hospital. He does not remember as to discharge date of accused Satbir. Injured Pramod remained admitted in hospital for more time as he suffered more injuries than others. On his first visit at the hospital concerned doctor declared all the three injured fit for statement but none of them gave any statement as they were known to each other and settlement talks were going on. He has not recorded the statement of the rikshaw puller who took both the motorcycle to PS.
5. Prosecution evidence was closed on 11/07/2022 and matter was listed for statement of accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C and same was recorded on 20/07/2022.
FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 11 of 30STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
6. After recording the prosecution evidence all the incriminating facts and evidence were put before the accused and he pleaded that he is innocent and he further pleaded that, at the relevant time and place he was not driving the offending vehicle and this accident was not caused by him. Complainant falsely implicated him in the present case in connivance with the police and the eyewitnesses are the interested witnesses. Lastly he said that he does not want lead any evidence.
Issues to be decided:
7. Before proceeding further, as per mandate laid down under Section 354 (1) (b) Cr.PC following are the points of determination which are necessary to consider in order to arrive at a conclusion:
(1). Whether accused Satbir Singh has committed the offence for rash driving or riding on a public way under section 279 IPC ?
(2). Whether accused Satbir Singh has committed the offence causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety under section 338 IPC?FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 12 of 30
(3). Whether accused Satbir Singh has committed the offence driving a motor vehicle without holding insurance as well as without registration certificate under section 146/196 and 39/192 MV Act?
Court's observation
8. "Whether accused Satbir Singh has committed the offence for rash driving or riding on a public way under section 279 IPC?"
Let us peruse the provision of Section 279 IPC, which is as under : Section 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.
Essentials Ingredients of Section 279 IPC (1). Driving or riding in a public way (2). Such driving or riding must be rash or negligent to the point of endangering human life or causing harm or injury to others.FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 13 of 30
The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case titled Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 284 observed that:
"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."
The Hon'ble Supreme court further observed that Ravi Kapur (supra);
"The court has to adopt another parameter i.e. "reasonable care" in determining the question of negligence or contributory negligence. The doctrine of reasonable care imposes an obligation or a duty upon a person (for example a driver) to care for the pedestrian on the road and this duty attains a higher degree when the pedestrians happen to be children of tender years. It is axiomatic to say that while FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 14 of 30 driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others."
9. "Whether accused Satbir Singh has committed the offence causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety under section 338 IPC?"
Let us peruse the provision of Section 338 IPC, which is as under : Section 338: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others: Whoever causes grievous 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.
Essentials Ingredients of Section 338 IPC (1). Accused did an act rashly or negligently.
(2). Act endangered human life or the personal safety of others.FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 15 of 30
(3). Such act cause grievous hurt.
10. "Whether accused Satbir Singh has committed the offence driving a motor vehicle without holding insurance as well as without registration certificate under section 146/196 and 39/192 MV Act Section 146: Necessity for insurance against third party risk(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter: [Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991.
Explanation. --A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this subsection, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the subsection unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any vehicle owned by the Central Government or a State Government and used for Government purposes unconnected with any commercial enterprise.
FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 16 of 30(3) The appropriate Government may, by order, exempt from the operation of subsection (1) any vehicle owned by any of the following authorities, namely:--
(a) the Central Government or a State Government, if the vehicle is used for Government purposes connected with any commercial enterprise;
(b) any local authority;
(c) any State transport undertaking:
Provided that no such order shall be made in relation to any such authority unless a fund has been established and is maintained by that authority in accordance with the rules made in that behalf under this Act for meeting any liability arising out of the use of any vehicle of that authority which that authority or any person in its employment may incur to third parties. Explanation. --For the purposes of this sub section, "appropriate Government" means the Central Government or a State Government, as the case may be, and
--
(i) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government or any State Government, means the Central Government or that State Government;
(ii) in relation to any corporation or company owned by the Central Government and one or more State Governments, means the Central Government;
(iii) in relation to any other State transport undertaking or any local authority, means that Government which has FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 17 of 30 control over that undertaking or authority.
Section 196: Driving uninsured vehicle Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 146 shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 39: Necessity for registration No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Section 192: Using vehicle without registration (1) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 18 of 30 less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both: Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, impose a lesser punishment.
(2) Nothing in this section shall apply to the use of a motor vehicle in an emergency for the conveyance of persons suffering from sickness or injuries or for the transport of food or materials to relieve distress or of medical supplies for a like purpose: Provided that the person using the vehicle reports about the same to the Regional Transport Authority within seven days from the date of such use.
(3) The Court to which an appeal lies from any conviction in respect of an offence of the nature specified in subsection (1), may set aside or vary any order made by the Court below, notwithstanding that no appeal lies against the conviction in connection with which such order was made.
FINDINGS
11. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 19 of 30 Court has held that:
(i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
(ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt".
12. In the present case the charge for the offence U/s 279/338 IPC and 146/196 & 39/192 MV Act has been framed against accused. Before appreciating the evidence, let us first discuss relevant legal provisions given under Indian Penal code. In the present case, prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under section 279/338 IPC that:
(i) That an accident was caused with a particular vehicle.
(ii) That accused was driving that particular vehicle which caused the accident.
(iii) That grievous hurt to any person must have been accused;
FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 20 of 30(iv) and it must have been caused by rash or negligent act/driving of the accused.
Establishment of identity
13. PW1 and PW2 are the eyewitnesses of the case and they remains supportive with the prosecution throughout the trial. Their cross examination was allowed by the court and it took place almost 8 years after their examination in chief and they still remains corroborative with the version of the prosecution. Both these witnesses cemented the identity of the accused as well as the identity of the offending vehicle.
Apart from these two eyewitnesses, there are 08 other formal and police witnesses also examined and they are substantiate the case of the prosecution and establish the identity of the offending vehicle and accused.
Defense as to Interesting witness
14. Furthermore, the accused taken the defense that the both eyewitnesses are the interesting witnesses and their testimonies are not reliable.
However in Sarwan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 369, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, observed that:
Even though an eyewitness might have belong to the group of the deceased and that witness came from one particular FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 21 of 30 group was sufficient to show the interested nature of evidence. But it was not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence or that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. All that the Courts required as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, was that the evidence of such witness should be scrutinized with a little care. It was further observed in the above decision that there might be circumstances where only interested evidence might be available and no other, e.g. when an occurrence took place in absence of no other witness, but once such witness was scrutinized with a little care and the Court was satisfied that the evidence of the interested witness have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration.
In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 145: AIR 1953 SC 364: 1953 Cri LJ 1465], Vivian Bose, J. for the Bench observed the law as under:
(AIR p. 366, para 26) "26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 22 of 30 screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting any sweeping generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
In Masalti v. State of U.P., (1964) 8 SCR 133 : AIR 1965 SC 202 :
(1965) 1 Cri LJ 226] , a fiveJudge Bench of this Court has categorically observed as under: (AIR pp. 209210, para 14) "14. ... There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes the court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 23 of 30 that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. Often enough, where factions prevail in villages and murders are committed as a result of enmity between such factions, criminal courts have to deal with evidence of a partisan type. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence;
but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct."
Defense of plea of alibi
15. The Accused further taken the defense in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C that at the time of incident he was not driving the offending vehicle. It means he was somewhere else at the relevant time and indirectly taken the defense of plea of alibi. However, no evidence laid down by the accused for the same also.
Section 11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant--Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-- (1). if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact;
(2). if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or nonexistence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable.
FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 24 of 30In Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) 6 SCC 204, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down that:
"The burden of establishing the plea of alibi lay upon the appellants and the appellants have failed to bring on record any such evidence which would, even by reasonable probability, establish their plea of alibi. The plea of alibi in fact is required to be proved with certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence and in the house which was the home of their relatives."
Burden U/s 106 Evidence Act
16. In final argument the prosecution question about, how the offending vehicle was got damaged if accident was not took place and further question that this fact is within the special knowledge of the accused and onus of proof is on the accused to relieve it's burden U/S 106 of Indian Evidence Act.
In response of the same, there were no explanation was made by the accused as to how his motorcycle got damaged. Prosecution has raise the question as to the burden of proof U/S 106 of Indian Evidence Act. The provision of section 106 of Indian Evidence Act laid down as:
Section 106 Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 25 of 30 upon him.
In Kalu @ Laxminarayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal No. 1677 of 2010 decided on November 07, 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that:
Section 106 of the Evidence Act postulates that the burden of proving things which are within the special knowledge of an individual is on that individual. Although the Section in no way exonerates the prosecution from discharging its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, it merely prescribes that when an individual has done an act, with an intention other than that which the circumstances indicate, the onus of proving that specific intention falls onto the individual and not on the prosecution. If the accused had a different intention than the facts are specially within his knowledge which he must prove.
In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681,the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India laid down that:
Although Section 106 is in no way aimed at relieving the prosecution from its burden to establish the guilt of an accused, it applies to cases where chain of events has been successfully established by the prosecution, from which a reasonable inference is made out against the accused. Moreover, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 26 of 30 whenever an incriminating question is posed to the accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then such a response in itself becomes an additional link in the chain of events.
Circumstantial evidence
17. Circumstantial evidence are the most important aspect to decide the liability of the accused in any criminal trial. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence that does not, on its face, prove a fact in issue but gives rise to a logical inference that the fact exists. Circumstantial evidence requires drawing additional reasonable inferences in order to support the claim. When no other conclusive evidence are present to establish the liability of the accused, the prosecution shall rely upon the circumstantial evidence corroborating with other evidence. However, the circumstantial evidence must be of conclusive tendency and must create a chain of event or evidence which only pointed towards the guilt of the accused and left no other probability in favor of accused.
In Sharad Birdhi chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 153, the Apex court has observed about the circumstantial evidence that:
"(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be established':
(ii) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 27 of 30 should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty:
(iii)The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency:
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and;
(v) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probably the act must have been done by the accused".
CONCLUSION
18. The accused has taken three main defenses, firstly, that the there are two eyewitness and secondly, that there is no independent witness and both the eye witnesses are the interested witnesses as both of them are the injured and therefore their testimonies cannot be considered as reliable. However, this court finds that there is no embargo to rely upon the evidence advance by a witness who is the interested witness and was present at the spot at the time of incident. Thirdly, the defense was taken by the accused that he was not at the spot at the relevant time and taken the plea of alibi. However, the accused has not advance any evidence as to his presence somewhere else and failed to prove this fact and the onus is upon him u/s FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 28 of 30 106 Evidence Act, because this fact is within the special knowledge of him only and the same was not released by him.
19. This court finds that, the prosecution has proved the identity of the accused, the manner in which the offence has been committed, place of commission of the offence, the investigation including the documents prepared, etc. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
20. In view of the above discussions, the accused Satbir Singh @ Monu S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan is hereby convicted for the charges under Section 279/338 Indian Penal Code.
21. Now, coming to the offences U/s 146/196 & 39/192 MV Act, it is charged that accused was driving the vehicle without any valid insurance and without registration certificate. Although, prosecution has not called any relevant witness to prove this fact that offending vehicle was not insured at the time of accident, but the accused could not produce valid insurance policy and registration certificate, the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act stand violated, so offence U/s 146/196 & 39/192 MV Act is also made out.
FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 29 of 3022. In view of the above discussions, the accused Satbir Singh @ Monu S/o Sh. Jai Bhagwan is hereby convicted for the charges under Section 146/196 & 39/192 Motor Vehicle Act.
23. Convict is directed to file an affidavit of his income and assets in Annexure A format, in compliance of the directions contained in case titled "Karan v. State NCT of Delhi"; CRL.A. 352/2020 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, within 10 days.
24. State is also directed to disclose the expenses incurred in the prosecution on an affidavit along with the supporting documents within 30 days.
25. Let the matter now be heard on the point of sentence.
Copy of judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
Dictated & Announced in Open Court.
(Jitender) MM01/North/Rohini/Delhi 15.09.2022 FIR No. 5286177/2016 PS Narela State Vs. Satbir Singh @ Monu Page 30 of 30