Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Kumar on 23 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKSHAY SHARMA, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, SOUTH EAST, SAKET
COURTS, DELHI.
FIR NO. 409/2016
PS. OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA
U/s. 279/337/338 IPC
STATE VS AMIT KUMAR
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 111/2/17
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 15.03.2017
C. NAME OF THE : Mukesh Kumar
COMPLAINANT S/o Sh. Babu Ram
D. NAME OF THE : Amit Kumar
ACCUSED S/o Sh. Narender Singh
E. OFFENCE COMPLAINED
OF : U/s 279/337/338 IPC
F. DATE OF COMMISSION
OF OFFENCE : 26.06.2016
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Convicted.
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 23.07.2024.
BRIEF FACTS
1. Briefly stated, facts of the instant case as per the complaint on the basis of which the present FIR is registered are, that on 26.06.2016 when the complainant Mukesh Kumar alongwith his wife Seema was going on Motorcycle bearing no. DL6SX6899 to Tuglakabad from his house at Kalkaji and when he crossed Nathu Sweets, red light chowk, suddenly one Maruti Omni bearing registration no. DL6CL0853 hit his motorcycle from behind with high impact. Due to which the complainant and his wife fell down from the motorcycle and dragged on the road and sustained serious injuries due to this impact. After causing the accident, driver of the offending vehicle tried to run away from the spot, but complainant's wife Seema managed to stop him despite being injured and Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23 16:33:05 +0530 :2: police was called. The PCR van reached the spot and took control of the offending vehicle and the driver. Complainant's motorcycle was also taken by the police officer at the spot and the PCR took the complainant and his wife to AIIMS Trauma Centre for treatment. As per the complainant, the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. On the complaint of the complainant, a tehrir was prepared and FIR u/s 279/337 IPC was registered. The site plan was prepared at the instance of HC Yogesh. Both the accidental motorcycle and th offending vehicle were seized. Notice u/s 133 MV Act was served to the registered owner of the offending vehicle, the registered owner Amit Kumar submitted in his reply that he was the only one who was driving the offending vehicle which is Maruti Van no.DL6CL0853 at the time of accident.
Thereafter, the driving license of the accused and the documents of the offending vehicle were seized. The accused was arrested. The mechanical inspection of both accidental and offending vehicle were got conducted by a Motor Vehicle Inspector. DL of the accused was got verified. The result on the MLC of the injured Mukesh was obtained, since the injury was grievous, Section 338 IPC was added. Thereafter, the present charge-sheet for judicial verdict was filed before this court.
CHARGE
2. Cognizance was taken in the instant case and compliance of Section 207 CrPC was done. Thereafter, after hearing the arguments on charge separate charge u/s 279/337/338 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23
16:33:17 +0530
:3:
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, case was put for prosecution evidence and the following prosecution witnesses were examined:
3.1. PW-1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016, he alongwith his wife Seema was going to Tuglakabad from his address (K-79B, 3 rd Floor Kalkaji) on his motorcycle bearing no. DL-6SX-6899. At around 01:30 pm, when he crossed Nathu Sweets red light signal, suddenly, one maruti van came from behind and hit against his motorcycle. He and his wife fell down on the road. The registration number of the above said Maruti car was DL-6CL-0853. After hitting them, the offending vehicle tried to flee away from the spot but his wife managed to stop the vehicle. PCR van came and they were taken to AIIMS Trauma Center. The accused who was driving the above said offending vehicle was present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness. He further submitted that he gave his complaint to the police vide Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signature at point 'A'. He was referred to another hospital by the doctors of AIIMS Trauma Center as he sustained grievous injuries. PW stated that this accident happened due to negligent driving of the accused as he was driving properly and accused hit his motorcycle from behind.
PW 1 further submitted that he can identify the offending vehicle, if shown to him.
At that stage, witness was shown two photographs of maruti van no. DL-6CL-0853 and witness correctly identified the same. These photographs were exhibited as Ex.P1 (colly.).
Digitally signed byAKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.23 16:33:26 +0530 :4: 3.2. PW-2 SI Rakesh Kumar was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016, he was working as DO in PS-OIA, and his duty hours were from 04:00 pm to 12:00 night. On that day at about 08:40 pm, Ct. Ranbir brought a rukka/tehrir which was sent by HC Yogesh. He put his endorsement on the Tehrir vide Ex.PW2/A and registered the FIR and its copy is Ex.PW2/B, both bearing his signatures at point A (OSR). After registration of FIR, copy of FIR was handed over to HC Sumer Singh. That day, he had brought the original FIR register, containing the above said FIR in original. (OSR).
3.3. PW-3 Smt. Seema was examined, she in her examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016 at about 1.30 pm she along with her husband Mukesh was going to Tughlakabad Extension from Kalkaji on motorcycle bearing no. DL6X6899. They reached in front of Nathu Sweets and a Maruti Omni van bearing no. DL6CL0853 came from back side and hit against their motorcycle from its back. She and her husband fell down on the road and sustained injuries. PW submitted that the offending vehicle bearing no. DL6CL0853 was being driven by accused Amit, who was present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness, in a rash and negligent manner. Accused tried to flee away from the spot but she caught hold him. She called at 100 number. Police came at the spot and took them to AIIMS Trauma Centre. She further submitted that she can identify the offending vehicle if shown to her.
At that stage, witness was shown one photograph of offending vehicle bearing no. DL6CL0853 and witness correctly identified the same. These photographs were exhibited as Ex.P1 (colly).
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23
16:33:34 +0530
:5:
3.4. PW-4 Sh. ASI Sunil was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016 he was posted as HC at P.P. OΙΕ, P.S. ΟΙΑ. On that day he was on emergency duty and his duty hours from 8 am to 8 pm. At about 1:45 pm he received DD No. 25A regarding accident in front of Nathu Sweet, Ma Anand Mai Marg. He along with Ct. Jai Krishan reached at the spot and where he found one Maruti van bearing No. DL- 6CL-0853 and one motorcycle bearing No. DL-6SX- 6899 in accidental condition, injured Mukesh and his wife namely Seema and PCR van staff and the accused was apprehended by the PCR staff. Ct. Vijay Pal handed over him the custody of accused Amit Kumar, who was present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter PCR took the injured persons namely Mukesh and his wife namely Seema to hospital. Thereafter he received DD No. 26A regarding the admission of injured persons Mukesh and his wife namely Seema. Thereafter, he left Ct. Jai Krishan along with accused at the spot and he reached at AIIMS Trauma Centre and he collected the MLC(s) of the above said injured persons. Thereafter IO HC Yogesh reached at the AIIMS Trauma Centre and he handed over the MLC(s) of injured Mukesh and his wife namely Seema. Thereafter IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PW further submitted that he can identify the accidental vehicle and offending vehicle if shown to him. The case property was already released on superdari.
At that stage, 2 photographs of Maruti van bearing No. DL- 6CL-0853 was shown to the witness. After seeing, witness correctly identify the same and the same was already exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly).
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23
16:33:43 +0530
:6:
At that stage, 01 photograph of motorcycle bearing No. DL- 6SX-6899 was shown to the witness. After seeing, witness correctly identified the same and the same was exhibited as Ex. P-2.
3.5. PW-5 HC Jai Kishan was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016 he was posted as Constable at P.P. OIE, P.S. OIA. On that day he was on emergency duty and his duty hours from 8 am to 8 pm. At about 1:45 pm HC Sunil received DD No. 25A regarding accident in front of Nathu Sweet, Ma Anand Mai Marg. He along with HC Sunil reached at the spot and where he found one Maruti van and one motorcycle in accidental condition, injured Mukesh and his wife namely Shobha and PCR van staff and the accused was apprehended by the PCR staff. Ct. Vijay Pal handed over to HC Sunil the custody of accused Amit Kumar, who was present in the court that day and was correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter PCR took the injured persons namely Mukesh and his wife namely Shobha to hospital. Thereafter HC Sunil received DD No. 26A regarding the admission of injured persons Mukesh and his wife namely Shobha. Thereafter, he along with accused remained at the spot and HC Sunil went at AIIMS Trauma Centre. Thereafter, HC Yogesh and Ct. Ranbir reached at the spot and he handed over the custody of accused to IO/HC Yogesh. Thereafter IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C at P.S. He can identify the accidental vehicle and offending vehicle if shown to him.
PW further submitted that the case property was already released on superdari.
At that stage, 2 photographs of Maruti van bearing No. DL-
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23
16:33:50 +0530
:7:
6CL- 0853 and 01 photograph of motorcycle bearing No. DL-6SX-6899 were shown to the witness. After seeing, witness correctly identified the same and the same was already exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly) and Ex. P-2.
At that stage, Ld. APP for State sought permission to ask some leading questions to the witness which was heard and allowed.
It is wrong to suggest that name of injured is Seema. Her name was Shoba. It is correct that the bearing No. of Maruti Van bearing No. DL- 6CL-0853 and motorcycle bearing No. DL-6SX-6899.
At that stage, Ld. APP for the state seeks permission from the court to cross examine the said witness as he is resiling from the first leading question which was heard and allowed.
In cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, PW submitted that it is wrong to suggest that name of the injured was Shobha. Her name was Seema.
3.6. PW-6 Sh. T. U. Siddiqui was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that he is a Govt. approved surveyor and loss assessors and working for more than 40 years independently. On 27.01.2016 on the request of HC Sumer Singh, PS-OIA, New Delhi he had inspected Bajaj motorcycle bearing no. DL6SX6899 and Maruti Van Omni bearing no. DL6CL0853 and submitted his 2 detailed report with the fresh damages Ex. PW6/A & PW6/B both bearing his signature at point 'A' respectively.
3.7. PW-7 HC Vijay Kumar was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016 he was posted as IC Incharge at PCR Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23 16:33:59 +0530 :8: Kite- 50. On that day he received a call at about 1.35 pm regarding accident upon which he reached at the spot i.e. Nathu Sweets, DTC Bus Stand, Maa Anandmayee Marg at about 1.40 pm where he met injured namely Mukesh Kumar and his wife Seema and accused Amit. In the meantime, HC Sunil reached at the spot. Thereafter he handed over custody of accused Amit to HC Sunil and he shifted the injured persons to AIIMS, Trauma Centre. PW7 further submitted that he did not see the offending vehicle and accidental vehicle as both were standing on the side of road. Accused was present in the court that day and was correctly identified by the witness.
3.8. PW-8 Ct. Ranvir Singh was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016 he was posted as constable at PS-
OIA. On that day he was on emergency duty along with HC Yogesh. IO was informed by HC Sunil Tyagi that an accident took place near Nathu Sweets, Maa Anandmai Marg. Thereafter they reached at the spot where they found Ct. Jai Kishan who informed us that injured persons were already shifted to hospital by PCR and he handed over custody of accused to IO. At the spot they also found one motorcycle bearing no. DL6SX6899 and offending vehicle bearing no. DL6CL0853 make Maruti Van Omni. Thereafter IO left him at the spot and went to hospital. After sometime IO came back at the spot and handed over him rukka for registration of FIR. PW8 further submitted that after registration of FIR DO handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Sumer Singh as further investigation was marked to him. Thereafter he along with IO / HC Sumer Singh reached at the spot and IO prepared site plan and seized Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23 16:34:07 +0530 :9: the offending vehicle and accidental vehicle vide memos Ex. PW8A and PW8/B bearing his signature at point 'A'. IO also seized the DL of accused and documents of offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/C and PW8/D bearing his signature at point 'A'. IO also served notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the owner of offending vehicle. After interrogation accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW8/E bearing his signature at point 'A'. IO also recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW8/F bearing his signature at point 'A'. Thereafter accused was released on bail and case property was deposited at Malkhana. Accused was present in the court that day and was correctly identified by the witness. He further submitted that he can identify the case property if shown to him. The same was already released on superdari. At that stage, witness was shown 02 photographs of offending vehicle bearing no. DL6CL0853 and one photograph of accidental vehicle bearing no. DL6SX6899 and witness correctly identifies the same. Those photographs were already exhibited as Ex.P1 colly and P2.
3.9. PW9- Doctor Ashutosh Kumar Malik was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016, he was working in the emergency department AIIMS trauma center. In the afternoon the injured was brought to the hospital. He informed him that he got injured in road traffic accident. He was marked in yellow zone. PW had generally examined the injured. He was conscious and identify himself as Mukesh.
PW further submitted that the accused showed him his injuries upon which he made his observation as the injuries being grievous in nature with a blunt object. His observation and his opinion were mentioned in Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23 16:34:15 +0530 :10: MLC No.568205/26JUN2016 vide Ex.PW5/A which is signed by him at point A,B,C,D and E. The injured was later transferred to another govt hospital.
3.10. PW10- Sh. Rajender Singh was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on he had brought certified treatment record of MLC NO.568205 of injured Mukesh dated 26.06.2016 which is Ex.PW10/A. 3.11. PW11- ASI. Yogesh Kumar was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016 he was posted as HC at PS OIA. He was on emergency duty along with Ct. Ranveer Singh. In the afternoon he received a call from HC Sunil Tyagi who was posted at PP OIA Phase-III that he had received the DDNO.25 and 26 pertaining to accident which were in the area covered by PS OIA. PW11 further submitted that he along with Ct. Ranveer went to the spot i.e., in front of Nathu Sweets main road OIA Phase-2. Where they met Ct. Jai Kishan who showed us two vehicles being one bike and one Maruti van in accident condition. He had also apprehended the driver of the offending vehicle. Accused present in the court that day was correctly identified by the witness. Thereafter, he left Ct. Ranveer at the spot along with the accused and the aforesaid vehicle. He tried to find any eye witness for the aforesaid accident, he was unable to find any. He went to the AIIMS trauma center where he met HC Sunil who gave him the MLCs of the injured Mukesh and Seema. He met both the injured persons. Mukesh gave his written complaint Ex.PW1/A which was endorsed by him at point B. He again tried to find any eye witness at the hospital but again he Digitally signed by AKSHAY SHARMA AKSHAY Date:
SHARMA 2024.07.23
16:34:21
+0530
:11:
was unable to find any. He went to the spot and prepared the tehrir and gave to the Ct. Ranveer to get the FIR registered. Thereafter, Ct Ranveer returned back to the spot along with HC Sumer Singh who informed him that by the order of the SHO, he Shall be carry for the investigation in the present matter. He further submited that he handed over the accused and aforesaid vehicles along with the MLC of the injured persons to IO/ HC Sumer. IO made the site plan at my instance vide Ex.PW11/A signed by him at point A. 3.12. PW 12 Dr. Mohd. Danish was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016, he was working in the emergency department AIIMS Trauma Center. In the afternoon, the injured in the MLC No-568206/26JUN, 2016 was brought in the hospital.
He further submitted that he had noted the injuries of the injured and given primary treatment. There were abrasions on right knee and right hand. The injuries were simple in nature. The MLC NO. 568206/26JUN, 2016 is Ex.PW-12/A signed by him at point A. The injured was discharged after giving the primary treatment.
3.13. PW-13 Dr. Pravat Kumar Dhal, Senior Resident, Department of Radiology, was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on Today he had come on behalf of Dr. Saqib Hussain. He had joined AIIMS in August 2022. At that stage, the witness was shown MLC X-ray report prepared by Dr. Saqib Hussain dated 26.06.2016 under his signature and seal along with x-ray of Right Shoulder, Chest and Pelvis. Same were Ex.PW13/A(colly). As per the report there was a fracture in the right humerus bone.
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23
16:34:27 +0530
:12:
3.14. PW14 ASI Sumer Singh, was examined, he in his examination in chief deposed that on 26.06.2016, he was posted as HC at PS OIA, on that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him after registration of the FIR. PW14 further submitted that he along with Ct. Ranveer Singh reached the spot i.e., near Nathu Sweets, Maa Anandmai Marg, OIA-II. PW met with HC Yogesh there and he handed over the custody of the accused driver namely, Amit Kumar along with offending car bearing no.DL6CL0853 and the motorcycle bearing registration no. DL6SX6899 of the injured/ victim. He prepared the site plan at the instance of HC Yogesh which was Ex.PW11/A. HC Yogesh also handed over the MLC of injured biker and the pillion rider to him. He seized aforesaid bike and car vide memo Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B. In the meanwhile, the injured biker namely, Mukesh along with the pillion rider i.e., injured Seema reached the spot. He had shown the site plan to the injured biker and he stated the same to be correctly prepared. The accused driver was identified by the biker and the pillion rider at the spot. Thereafter, he served notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the accused driver who was the registered owner of the offending car and he voluntarily replied the notice which was annexed with the judicial file and was now Ex.PW14/A. Accused also produced the driving license and the documents of offending car which were seized vide memo Ex.PW8/C and Ex. PW8/D, he arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW8/E and he made his disclosure Ex.PW8/F. The pillion rider got her statement recorded but injured biker could not make his statement and stated to be under pain. The accused was released on police bail as per law and the aforesaid vehicles were shifted to the PS. He got deposited the said Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23 16:34:35 +0530 :13: vehicles in the Malkhana. During investigation, he got collected the mechanical inspection of seized vehicles, got verified the seized documents and obtained doctors opinion on the MLCs of injured biker and pillion rider. he also collected the MVI report and recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the challan/ charge-sheet. The accused was present in the court and was correctly identified by the witness.
He further submitted that he can identify the aforesaid offending car and victims motorcycle if shown to him, at that stage 02 photographs of aforesaid offending car which were Ex.P1 (colly) and 02 photographs of aforesaid motor-cycle already Ex.P2 were shown to the witness and the witness correctly identified.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
4. After the examination of the material prosecution witnesses, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of the accused u/s 281 CrPC r/w Section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein accused stated that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case and he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of incident. However, accused preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
DISCUSSION OF LAW, EVIDENCE AND DECISION THERE ON.
5. The question to be decided in the instant case is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offences with which the accused has been charged, i.e. Section 279,337,338 Indian Penal Code 1860. For proving the offence under Section 279 read with Section 337/338 IPC, the Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23 16:34:41 +0530 :14: prosecution must establish that :
1.) The accused was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner on a public way as to endanger human life or to cause injury or hurt to any person.
2.) Due to such driving, the accused caused grievous injuries to the injured Mukesh and simple injuries to the injured Seema.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the Judgment titled as Mohd. Aynuddin Miyam vs. State of A.P . [(2000)7 SCC 72] held that:
"9. 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."
7. Coming now to the facts of the case at hand, the culpability of the Accused shall be decided on the basis of the parameters mentioned in the above-mentioned respective judgment. The court will have to find Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23 16:34:52 +0530 :15: answers to certain questions which bring forth the truth of the matter i.e. whether the Accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the commission of alleged offences, whether the Accused was rash and negligent in his conduct and whether due to the rash and negligent conduct of the Accused injuries were caused to other persons. Each of the said issues will be discussed separately in the following paragraphs.
1) Whether the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of commission of the alleged offence?
8. Considering the facts of the present case, it is observed that the accused has taken the defence of identity in his statement Recorded u/s 313 CrPC. The accused has stated that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident. However, in the opinion of this court the defence of identity taken by the accused is a weak and false one. The accused was apprehended red handed after the accident. Both the injured persons i.e PW1 Mukesh and PW3 Seema have correctly identified the accused in the court. Further, in the reply to the notice u/s 133 MV Act which is Ex.PW14/A, the accused has admitted that he is the registered owner of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL6CL0853 and the was the only one driving the said vehicle at the time of accident. Further, it is observed that testimony of the injured persons is corroborated by PW 7 HC Vijay Kumar, who met both the injured and the accused at the spot, when he reached after receiving the call regarding accident. Furthermore, the testimony of PW7 HC Vijay kumar is further corroborated by PW4 ASI Sunil and PW5 HC Jaikishan, to whom the custody of accused was handed over by HC Vijay. The testimonies fo PW4 and PW5 are further corroborated by PW Ct. Ranvir and PW14 ASI Digitally signed AKSHAY by AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2024.07.23 16:35:03 +0530 :16: Sumer Singh to whom the custody of the accused was further handed over. All the police officials who had met the accused at spot have correctly identified him. Thus, in light of the aforementioned discussion, this court has no hesitation to hold that the identity of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
2.) Whether due to rash and negligent driving, the accused caused grievous injuries to the injured Mukesh and simple injuries to the injured Seema.
9. The essential aspect to be adjudicated in the instant case is that whether the accused was rash or negligent in his driving of the offending vehicle which is Maruti omni van bearing no DL6CL0853 and whether due to such rash or negligent driving, grievous and simple injuries have been caused to PW1 Mukesh and PW3 Seema respectively.
10. In order to prove the nature of injuries, the prosecution has examined PW 9 Dr.Ashutosh, PW 9 had examined the injured Mukesh at AIIMS trauma centre after the accident. He proved the MLC in his examination in chief and stated as per his observation the injuries to PW1 Mukesh were grievous in nature with a blunt object. Furthermore, PW12 Dr. Mohd. Danish has been examined by the prosecution to prove the nature of injuries sustained by PW3/injured Seema. PW 12 proved the MLC of injured Seema as Ex. PW12/A. PW 12 stated that the nature of injuries sustained by PW Seema were simple in nature. Both PW9 nd PW12 were cross-examined on behalf of the accused, however, no such fact which shakes the credibility of PW9 and PW12 regarding the nature of injuries sustained by PW1 Mukesh and PW3 Seema has arisen. Hence, the fact regarding nature of injuries sustained by both PW1 and PW3 has Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23 16:35:12 +0530 :17: been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
11. The limited question to be analysed further is that whether such injuries has been caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. The prosecution has examined total of 14 witnesses, however, PW1 Mukesh and PW3, Seema are the most vital witnesses of the prosecution in order to establish the ingredients of rashness and negligence, the remaining prosecution witnesses have come into picture after the occurrence of the offence and hence the testimonies of the remaining prosecution witnesses does not provide any reflection regarding the ingredients of rashness and negligence, which form the backbone of the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and Section 338IPC.
12. Both PW1 and PW3 have stated in their examination that on 26.06.2016. When they were going to Tughlakabad from their house on their motorcycle bearing number DL6X6899, the accused driving his Maruti Omni van came and hit against their motorcycle from behind. The site plan which is Ex.PW11/A indicates that the accident has been caused when the offending vehicle was taking a U-turn and the vehicle of the injured persons had crossed the red light and were going straight. PW1 has categorically stated in his examination that the accident happened due to negligent driving of the accused as he was driving properly and the accused had hit his motorcycle from behind. Both PW1 and PW3 have correctly identified the accused as well as the offending vehicle.
13. Both PW1 and PW3 were duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused, however, no such material contradiction or any fact has Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23 16:35:20 +0530 :18: surfaced in their cross examination, which could incline this court to doubt their testimonies. Also, no such fact has arisen which could lead to any doubt regarding the ingredients of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
14. The testimonies of both PW1 and PW3 are consistent and corroborate in material particulars from the testimony of PW1 and PW3, the fact regarding the negligent conduct of the accused, which appears is the hitting of the motorcycle of the injured persons from behind. This particular fact itself speaks for the negligent conduct of the accused as the accused did not adopt due care and caution which every driver on the road is ought to exercise. This negligent conduct also becomes grave since, in the instant case the accused, as per the site plan, was taking a U- turn, the accused while taking a U-turn was expected to adopt utmost caution and consider the traffic which was moving in its right direction, since the person taking the U-turn is the one who is intervening in the free flow of traffic and thus the duty of the accused in the instant case was of higher degree, and violation of the that duty by the accused reflects his rashness. In the opinion of this court, there can be no justification by the accused for this rashness or negligence as the motorcycle of the injured person has been hit from behind and no fault or contributory negligence of the injured persons can be pleaded by the accused, hence the accused appears to be the sole person responsible for the unfortunate accident which has caused grievous and simple injuries to PW1 and PW3 respectively.
Digitally
signed by
AKSHAY
AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2024.07.23
16:35:28
+0530
:19:
15. Thus in the opinion of this court, the accused in the instant case was negligent in driving with care and caution, as while taking a you turn, he intervened in the free flow of traffic moving in rightful direction without adopting due care and caution. This negligence is further aggravated and can be termed as rash, since the accused not only violated the duty of care while taking a U turn, but also hit the injured person's motorcycle from behind, which resulted into grievous and simple injuries
16. The net effect of the above-discussion is that the testimonies of the most crucial prosecution witnesses does establish the ingredients of rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Amit Kumar stands convicted for offence punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC,1860.
Pronounced in the open court on 23.07.2024.
Judgment contains total 19 pages, each signed by the undersigned.
AKSHAY Digitally signed by AKSHAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2024.07.23 16:35:38
+0530
(AKSHAY SHARMA)
JMFC-02/SE/Saket/ND
23.07.2024