Delhi District Court
State vs Jai Chand // Fir No. 207 04 on 9 December, 2010
:1:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 197/2007
FIR No. 207/2004
PS : KANJHAWLA
U/s. 279/337/307 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
JAI CHAND
S/O LATE PRATHI SINGH
R/O VILL. NEELWAL
P.O. TIKRI KALAN
DELHI
Date of Institution : 25.01.2005.
Date of receipt of case in this court : 08.12.2008.
Arguments heard On : 09.12.2010.
Order Announced On : 09.12.2010
SHRI P.K. VERMA, APP FOR THE STATE.
SHRI B. B. SHARMA, COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED.
STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04
PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:2:
JUDGMENT
1. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 25.08.04 SI Amlanand on receipt of DD no. 8A regarding accident along with Ct. Virender went to the spot of crime i.e. Rani Khera road near metro godown, Mundka railway cross and found that one cycle was lying in accidental condition on the road. On inquiry they came to know that PCR had removed the injured to SGM hospital. No eye witness was found present at the spot. Thereafter he went to SGM hospital where he collected the MLC of injured Jawahar Lal and doctor declared him fit for statement. SI Amlanand recorded his statement and sent the rukka for registration of FIR u/s 279/337 IPC. Thereafter he again went to the spot of crime and tried to find out any eye witness of the accident but could not succeed. The cycle was seized by IO. During investigation duty officer vide DD no. 15A dated 25.08.04 informed that one Jai Chand along with truck no. HR-46A- 6157 was apprehended by Ct. Darshan Singh at Tikri Police Chowki. During investigation SI Amlanand met Jasbir Singh STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04 PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:3: and Ritesh Kumar Kaushik and he recorded their statements. They are also two victims in the accident and apprehended Jaichand, the truck driver. Thereafter as per their statement Section 307 IPC was added. The truck number HR 46A-6156 along with documents i.e. registration certificate and insurance were seized. Thereafter accused was arrested through owner of the truck Prithi Singh. Accused pointed out the place of crime and site plan was got prepared. Photographs of the scene of crime were also taken. The two wheeler scooter of Jasbir Singh no. DL-4SD-1304 and tempo of Ritesh Kumar Kaushik no. DL-1LE-8279 involved in the accident were also seized. Statement of all the witnesses was recorded. The seized vehicles were released on superdari as per order of the Ld. MM. The MLC of all the injured were collected. Accused was found without licence on the day of alleged incident and Section 3/181 M. V. Act was also added. After completion of investigation charge sheet u/s 279/337/307 IPC & 3/181 M. V. Act was filed against the accused.
STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04
PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:4:
2. The injured Jawahar Lal in his statement stated that on 25.08.04 he along with his son went to the school on bicycle and when he was coming back home at about 7.15 am after leaving his son in the school and when he reached at the Mundka Railway Crossing near Metro Godown, the one truck from the side of Rani Kheda came in a rash and negligent manner and hit is bicycle. He fell down and received injuries on his body and cycle was broken. The truck was stopped after some distance and he then noted down its number as HR-46A-6157 and also saw the driver of the truck while he was looking from the driver seat window. Then PCR van came and removed him to the hospital.
3. Another witness Jasbir Singh has stated that he is the owner of a water tanker and same is attached with Delhi Jal Board. A driver has been employed by him on this water tanker. He used to visit the place on his scooter where tankers are filled with water. On 24.08.04 at about 10.00 am he had a quarrel with Jai Chand who was his native villager but later on it was settled and same was informed to the STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04 PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:5: police chowki of Tikri Border. On 25.08.04 as usual he went to water tank for filling the tanker on his two wheeler scooter but when he was getting down from his two wheeler scooter then Jaichand brought his truck in a high speed near his scooter and hit and then he jumped due to the impact of the hit and received simple injuries. The truck also hit another Tempo no. DL-1LE-8279. Thereafter another tempo of Ritesh Kr. having registration number DL-1LE-3805 and fled. They followed the truck up to Tikri border. On the way the truck driver also hit one cycle rider near metro godown, Mundka and later on he was apprehended. He alleged that due to quarrel on 24.08.04 accused Jaichand attempted to kill him by hitting his truck with his two wheeler scooter.
4. Another witness Ritesh Kumar Kaushik also stated the similar facts as has been stated by witness Jasbir Singh.
5. Ld. MM after compliance of section 207 CrPC committed the case to the court of Sessions. STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04
PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:6:
6. My Ld. Predecessor Sh. Narottam Kaushal vide order dt. 11.05.2006 remanded back the case as no offence u/s 307 IPC was made out. Thereafter on the same day Ld. APP made objection and matter was fixed for 29.05.2006. On 29.05.2006 the order on charge was passed for trial of offence u/s 307/279/337 IPC and 3/181 M. V. Act. Accordingly charge was framed u/s 307/276/337 IPC was framed and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. After framing of charge, the case was transferred to the court of Sh. Arun Kumar Arya, Ld. ASJ. Vide order dt. 29.05.2007 as per directions of the High Court, arguments on charge were re-heard. Afresh arguments were heard by Sh. Rajnesh Bhatnagar, Ld. ASJ and vide order dt. 23.05.08, afresh charge was framed for trial u/s 307/279/337 IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Prosecution in support of present case examined PW1 Dr. Baljeet Singh who proved the MLC of injured Jawahar Lal Ex. PW1/A. PW2 Dr. Rajeev Rana proved the medical prescription Ex. PW1/A of injured Jasbir Singh. STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04
PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:7:
9. PW3 Jawahar Lal has deposed that on 25.8.2004, at about 7.15 am he was going along with his son to his at Mundka school and when he reached near Mundka Phatak and Metro Godown, one truck came there at fast speed and hit his cycle and due to the impact of the hit he fell down on the ground and received injuries. Thereafter after hitting him that truck ran away from the spot. He could not note down the number of the truck and could not see even the face of the driver. He has further deposed that he was removed by the PCR vehicle to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where Police met him and recorded his statement Ex. PW3/A. He has deposed that he did not identify the driver because he could not see the face of driver at the time of incident.
10. PW3 Jawahar Lal turned out to be hostile and was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state. He has denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for state that he had told to the police in his statement the truck number HR-46A-6157 or that driver saw him from the window of the truck after incident or that on 4.10.2004 he went to the police station for STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04 PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:8: enquiry of his cycle and he saw the accused at police station and he identified the driver before the police or that he has been won over by the accused or that he has deliberately not identify the accused or that due to fear of the accused.
11. PW4 Jasbir Singh has deposed that he was the owner of the Water Tanker Tata 407 and he had attached the same with the water supply of Delhi Jal Board. He has further stated that on 28.8.2004 at about 10.00 AM he went to the water supply office to leave the tanker there and after that he was returning back by his scooter for his house, one truck came from behind and his his scooter and ran away from the spot and due to this he fell down on the ground and received injuries and his scooter was also damaged. After hitting him that truck ran away from the spot. He has further testified that he could not note down the number of the truck and could not see even the face of the driver. He was removed by the the public to private hospital i.e. Shanti Nursing Home where Police met him in the Shanti Nursing Home and recorded his statement and was discharged from the hospital on the same day.
STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04
PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:9:
12. This witness also turned out to be hostile and was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state. He has denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for state that accused is the same person who was driving the said truck or that he had told the police that number of the truck was HR-46A-6157 or that driver saw him from the window of the truck after the accident or that he alongwith driver Ritesh chased the said trick but said truck also hit one cyclist in the midway and ran away. He has further denied the suggestion that the said truck driver stopped his trick near Tikri Chowki and they alongwith the police staff apprehended the driver or thatdriver disclosed his name as Jai Chand or that truck No. Hr-46A-6157 was seized by the police in his presence and he signed on the memo or that police seized RC and insurance papers of the said truck in his presence. PW4 has further denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for the state that accused was arrested in his presence or that his personal search was conducted or that he made his disclosure statement and pointed out the place of occurrence or that he has deliberately not identified the accused due to fear of accused. STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04
PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:10:
13. PW5 Jas Prakash is the owner of truck proved the fact that he got released the truck on superdari. He deposed that he can produce the truck and police recorded his statement. In his cross examination by the defence counsel he has stated that accused Jai Chand is his maternal uncle.
14. Another eye witness PW6 Ritesh has testified that he is the owner of tempo No. DL-1LE-8279 and DL-1LE-3805 and used to drive tempo No. DL-1LE-8279. He has stated that the accident pertains to the year of 2004, day and month he do not remember and on that day, one vehicle hit/touch his tempo No. DL-1LE-8279 which was parked at Water Tank, Jal Board, Karala. He could not trace the vehicle which hit his tempo. He has further stated that he is not aware of know any other incident pertaining to that day and nothing had happened in his presence and that police did not meet him and police did not record his statement and that he did not remember whether he had signed any documents prepared by police.
STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04
PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:11:
15. PW6 Ritesh turned out to be hostile and he too was cross examined by the Ld. APP for the state. He has denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for state that police recorded his statement on 25.08.04 or that he told the police that at about 7.15 am one truck bearing no. HR 46 A 6157 suddenly moved in fast speed and negligent manner or that the said truck hit the scooter no. DL 4SD 1304 which was driven by Jasvir Singh with intention to kill him or that after hitting the scooter of Jasvir Singh the said truck hit his tempo No. DL 1LE 8279 or that tanker of Jasvir was also parked there and after the incident the driver of Jasvir and Jasvir chased the said truck by their tempo. He has further denied the suggestion that the driver of truck no. HR 46A 6157 also hit one cyclist on the mid way and injured him or that the driver of the said truck was apprehended at Tikri Border or that he has deliberately not identified the accused due to his fear or that accused was arrested or his personal search was taken or he made any disclosure statement before him or that RC and insurance of the offender truck and cycle were seized by the police or that accused pointed the place of occurrence.
STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04
PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:12:
16. The prosecution case rest up on the testimony of eye witnesses namely PW3 Jawahar Lal, PW4 Jasbir Singh and PW6 Ritesh. All the injured and eye witness turned out to be hostile witnesses. Ld. APP for the state cross examined the eye witnesses at length but nothing incriminating was brought on record against the accused.
17. In these circumstances, Ld. APP requested that opportunity may be granted to examine the remaining police witnesses and doctors or any formal witness. The request of Ld. APP was declined because all the material witnesses / eye witnesses turned out to be hostile and no purpose shall be served in case the remaining police witnesses or doctors or formal witnesses are examined. Examination of these witness will be a futile exercise and hence in these special circumstances, prosecution evidence was closed.
18. On the basis of testimony of eye witnesses and injured persons, no incriminating evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove their case and, therefore, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC has been dispensed with.
STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04
PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.
:13:
19. On the basis of above discussed observation and discussion, accused is acquitted of offence u/s 307/337/279 IPC. Bail bond and surety bond of accused stands discharged. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance and filing of surety bond as per Sec. 437-A CrPC (amended). Announced in the open court (SANJAY KUMAR) today i.e. 09.12.2010 ASJ-01 (NW),ROHINI COURTS: DELHI STATE VS JAI CHAND // FIR NO. 207 04 PSKANJHAWLA // U/S. 279 337 307 IPC.