Delhi District Court
State vs Kishori Lal on 1 February, 2011
In the Court of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora : MM : KKD Courts : Delhi
FIR No. 321/00
U/s 279/337/338 IPC
PS Trilok Puri
State Vs Kishori Lal
JUDGMENT:
A Sl. No. of the case 02402R 0041392001 B Date of institution 28/08/2001 C Date of commission of 19/08/2000 offence D Name of the complainant State
E Name of the accused & Kishori Lal s/o Sh. Bansidhar r/o Jhuggi his parentage and No. A279, near B110, Sector10, Gatta address Company, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. F Offence complained of U/s 279/337/338 IPC G Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty H Order Reserved on 01/02/11 I Final order Convicted J Date of such order 01/02/11 Brief reasons for the decision of the case.
1. In a nutshell, prosecution case is that on 19.08.2000 at about 6:30 am upon receiving DD no. 30A, IO PW8 HC Hardwari Singh with PW6 Ct. Naresh Kumar reached the spot near Police Check Post, State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 1 of 12 Noida Tpoint, NH24 where one TSR no. DL1RC7110 and a two wheeler scooter no. UP14 G 1014 were found stationed in an accidental condition. At the spot, PW5 Ct. Santosh who was on vehicle checking duty at the nearby Police Check Post met and produced the accused before the IO and also informed about the manner in which the accident took place between the TSR driven by accused and the two wheeler scooter driven by the injured. In the meanwhile, DD no. 2A through PW7 Ct. Rajneesh with respect to admission of injured persons to LBS Hospital was received. Pursuant thereto and while leaving PW7 Ct. Rajneesh at the spot, IO with Ct. Naresh and accused proceeded to the LBS Hospital where MLCs of the complainant / injured Anil and injured Arvind were obtained. On the statement Ex.PW2/A of complainant / PW2 Anil, IO got the FIR registered through Ct. Naresh and arrested the accused at the instance of the complainant. During further investigation, both the vehicles were seized and mechanically inspected, statement of witnesses were recorded and finally, upon completion of necessary investigation, charge sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. was presented to the Court against the accused for trial.
2. On his appearance, accused was supplied with the copies of chargesheet / documents in compliance of s. 207 Cr.P.C. and was given Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Matter was then listed for prosecution evidence.
State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 2 of 12
3. In order to substantiate and prove its case against the accused, prosecution has examined eight witnesses. PW1 ASI Chanchal Sharma is the DO who on 19.08.2000 at about 9:20 am recorded FIR Ex. PW1/A on the rukka sent through Ct. Naresh by IO HC Hardwari Singh. PW2 Anil Kumar Srivastava is the complainant / injured. PW3 (Retd.) SI Kedar Nath, on 19.08.2000 mechanically inspected two wheeler scooter no. UP14G1014 and TSR no. DL1RC7110 and gave the M.I. report Ex.PW3/A & B respectively. PW4 Arvind Kumar Srivastava is the injured. PW5 Ct. Santosh Kumar is an eye witness to the incident. PW6 Ct. Naresh participated in the investigation with the IO. PW7 Ct. Rajneesh on 19.08.2000 handed over DD no. 2A to the IO. PW8 HC Hardwari Singh is the IO of the case.
It is pertinent to note here that vide separate proceedings of admission / denial of documents done u/s 294 r/w s. 313 (1) (a) Cr.P.C. accused admitted the MLC's of Anil Srivastava and Arvind Kumar Srivastava as Ex. C1 and C2 respectively.
As is apparent, the material witnesses for the prosecution to prove its case against the accused are the complainant / injured PW2 Anil Srivastava, PW4/injured Arvind Kumar Srivastava and PW5 Ct. Santosh Kumar. Coming on to the testimony of the complainant / PW2 Anil Kumar Srivastava, he in his examinationinchief testified that on 19.08.2000 at about 5:30 am he alongwith his brother J.W.O Arvind State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 3 of 12 Kumar left his house on two wheeler scooter UP14 G 1014 for Palam Airport. He further testified that whereas the scooter was being driven by his brother, he was sitting on the pillion seat. He further testified that at about 6:15 am when they crossed the Noida Tpoint and reached near Police Check Post, one TSR DL1RC7110 was found standing there and when they reached near the said TSR, the TSR driver suddenly took a right turn without taking any care of the vehicles coming from behind and struck against their scooter. He further testified that after hitting their scooter, accused tried to ran away from the spot on his TSR, however, was chased and apprehended at some distance by the police personnel present at the Police Check Post. He further testified that he and his brother were taken to LBS hospital in PCR van and in the hospital, accused who was brought by the Police was identified by him as the TSR driver. He further testified that in the said accident, whereas his left leg was fractured, his brother sustained injuries on his left shoulder, thumb and elbow respectively. He further testified that Police recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A to the said effect and the accused was personally searched in his presence vide P/S Memo Ex. PW2/B. He further testified that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. Despite opportunity, accused chose not to crossexamine the witness.
As to PW4 Arvind Kumar Srivastava, he in his examination inchief also reiterated the prosecution case as to their two wheeler State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 4 of 12 scooter no. UP14G1014 being suddenly hit by a TSR no. DL1RC7110 when the driver of the TSR took a sudden right turn without taking care of the vehicles coming from behind. He also reiterated the prosecution case as to his and his brother sustaining injuries in the accident. In his crossexamination by ld. defence counsel, he testified that Hindon Airbase is about 22 km away from the spot. He further testified that he noted the TSR number at the spot itself and had also seen the TSR driver taking a right turn. He denied the suggestion that the accused was seen by him for the first time in the hospital. He volunteered by stating that it was he who has informed the Police in the hospital that it was the accused who was driving the TSR. He further testified that on the date of incident, he was to board an Air force flight to Assam. He denied the suggestion that it was he who was driving the scooter at a fast speed or that it was due to his act that the accident resulted. He volunteered by stating that at the time of accident, the speed of his two wheeler was about 2030 kmph. He further testified that his statement was obtained by the Police in the Hospital and he can identify his handwriting. He further testified that Police recorded his statement 23 times and denied the suggestion that Police obtained his signatures on blank papers.
As to PW5 Ct. Santosh Kumar, he in his testimony stated that on 19.08.2000, he was present and posted at Noida Tpoint with other Police staff on vehicle checking duty. He further testified that he saw State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 5 of 12 the accused driving a TSR and taking a sudden turn on his right side without giving any indicator and resultantly hitting a two wheeler scooter UP14G1014 which was passing through while coming from behind. He further testified that the TSR driver did not stop his TSR and tried to flee away towards Nizamuddin, however, was chased on a motor cycle and was caught and brought back to the spot. He further testified that local Police came to the spot and the accused with the TSR was handed over to them and the injured were taken to the hospital in PCR. He further testified that accident took place at about 6:15 am due to negligency of accused. In his crossexamination, he testified that the distance between the spot where accident took place and the place from where the accused was apprehended is about 11½ km and it took him 45 minutes to chase and apprehend the accused. He further testified that he sent the wireless message to the PS and PCR reached the spot within 1520 minutes after the accident. He further testified that IO with one constable came thereafter and his statement was recorded at the spot itself. He further testified that statement of injured was not recorded at the spot as he had already been shifted to the Hospital. He denied the suggestion that the two wheeler scooter did not collide with the TSR of accused instead it collided with the barrier. He denied the suggestion that injured sustained injury due to his own fault.
Testimony of PW8 IO HC Hardwari Singh may also be noted. He also reiterated the prosecution case as to his reaching the State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 6 of 12 spot at Noida turn near Police Check Post with Ct. Naresh upon receiving DD No. 30A. He testified that at the spot, Ct. Santosh met them and produced the accused. He further testified that at the spot, he noticed one TSR no. DL1RC7110 and a two wheeler scooter no. UP14G1014 lying in an accidental condition. He further testified that in the meanwhile, he received DD No.2A through Ct. Rajneesh which was with respect to admission of injured to the Hospital. He further testified that pursuant thereto, he alongwith Ct. Naresh and accused went to LBS Hospital where the MLC of injured Anil Kumar Srivastava and of injured Arvind Kumar Srivastava were obtained and the statement Ex.PW2/A of complainant was recorded and the accused Kishori Lal was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/B and personally searched vide P/S Memo Ex.PW2/B on the identification of the complainant. He further testified that on the statement Ex. PW2/A of complainant, he made the endorsement Ex.PW8/A and got the case FIR registered through Ct. Naresh. He further testified that he also seized the TSR and the two wheeler scooter from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C&B respectively. He further testified that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/C at the instance of Ct. Santosh, obtained the M.I. Report of both the vehicles and recorded the statement of witnesses. In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, he testified that he reached the spot at about 6:45 am and the TSR driver was not apprehended by Ct. Santosh in his presence. He further testified that he had not shown the State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 7 of 12 place in the site plan from where Ct. Santosh apprehended the TSR driver. He denied the suggestion that the barricades were installed at the place of accident, rather he asserted that the barricades were installed at the check post. He denied the suggestion that the scooter of the complainant / injured struck against the barricade due to high speed and the accident was not caused by the accused. He further denied the suggestion that as the accused with the TSR was already present at the spot, he was falsely implicated.
4. In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., while denying all the incriminating evidence against him and pleading innocence and false implication, accused stated that he has been falsely implicated by the Police due to enmity. Despite being given the opportunity to lead evidence in his defence, no witness was produced and examined by the accused and the matter was accordingly finally heard.
5. Heard the ld. APP for the State and ld. defence counsel for the accused and perused the record carefully. Ld. defence counsel would contend that the accused has been falsely implicated as the complainant / injured were from the Air Force and thus exercised their official influence upon the Police to falsely implicate the accused who was present with his TSR at the relevant time and the spot. Ld. defence counsel would further contend that the nature of injury as sustained by complainant Anil and injured Arvind will not be of such description as given in their MLCs Ex.C1 and C2 merely because of the hitting of their State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 8 of 12 twowheeler scooter by the sudden turn of TSR by the accused unless and until the two wheeler scooter driver was driving the scooter at a fast speed and in a negligent manner. Ld. defence counsel would further contend that there was no opportunity for the complainant Anil and the injured Arvind to identify the accused at the spot as by the time the accused is alleged to have been apprehended, both the complainant and the injured have already been shifted to the LBS Hospital, therefore their identification of accused at the Hospital when the accused was produced before them by the Police cannot be said to be free from doubt and suspicion. Ld. defence counsel would further contend that the complainant and injured being officials of Air Force and the only other eye witness namely PW5 Ct. Santosh examined by the prosecution being a Police official and no independent public witness having been joined, the prosecution case cannot be said to be full proof against the accused. Ld. APP, on the other hand, would contend that through the unrebutted testimony of complainant PW2 Anil Kumar, the testimony of injured PW4 Arvind and of the independent witness PW5 Ct. Santosh, prosecution has conclusively established that complainant as well as the injured sustained injuries on the person due to rash and negligent driving of the TSR by accused. As to the contention of ld. defence counsel that the identification of accused by the complainant and injured is suspicious, ld. APP would contend that PW2 Anil has categorically deposed that accused was seen by him at the spot itself State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 9 of 12 and when the accused was produced by the Police in the Hospital, it was he who informed the Police that accused is the same TSR driver. Ld. APP would, thus, contend that not only the identity of the accused as the TSR driver has been conclusively established but also the rash and negligent driving of the TSR by the accused has also been established beyond a shadow of doubt.
Having heard the respective submissions and having gone through the record, I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully established its case not only as to the identity of the accused as the TSR driver but also the rash and negligent driving of the TSR by the accused which resulted in causing of injuries, simple and grievous, on the person of injured Arvind and complainant Anil. PW2 Anil has categorically deposed in his examinationinchief that he had the opportunity to identify the accused as the TSR driver at the spot itself and further the accident resulted due to the taking of sudden right turn of the TSR by the accused without taking any notice of the vehicles coming from behind. This testimony of complainant / PW2 Anil which has gone unrebutted establishes the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The testimony of PW4 injured Arvind and of PW5 Ct. Santosh corroborates and rather reinforces the testimony of complainant PW2 Anil. As to the contention of ld. defence counsel that no independent public witness has been joined in the investigation and the testimony of PW5 Ct. Santosh cannot be relied upon, he being a State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 10 of 12 police official, is not tenable as PW5 Ct. Santosh in the given set of facts and circumstances of the present case was naturally placed at / near the spot, he being posted on vehicle checking duty at Police Check Post, near Noida Tpoint, NH24. Thus, it cannot be said that PW5 Ct. Santosh has been planted as an eye witness by the investigating agency. Further, the issue of false implication as raised by ld. defence counsel stands on no foundation as admittedly PW2 / complainant Anil Kumar and injured PW4 Arvind Kumar have no axe to grind against the accused. Further, as already noted, the incident has been witnessed by an independent witness PW5 Ct. Santosh who even in his cross examination has categorically deposed as to how the accused was rash and negligent in his driving in taking a sudden right turn of his TSR without giving any indicator and being unmindful and callous of the approaching vehicles coming from behind. Furthermore, the suggestions put to the witnesses reveals that the defence has taken inconsistent stands. Whereas the suggestion put to injured / PW4 Arvind in his crossexamination was that the accident resulted due to his driving the two wheeler scooter at a fast speed, contrary to this, the suggestion put to PW5 Ct. Santosh was that the injury resulted on the person of the complainant PW2 Anil and injured PW4 Arvind due to hitting of their scooter with the barricades installed at near the spot. No such suggestion has been put to the injured / PW4 Arvind Kumar. Thus, the prosecution has successfully established its case of rash and State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 11 of 12 negligent driving of the TSR by the accused and the consequent injuries resulting on the person of the complainant Anil and injured Arvind. The nature of injuries sustained by the complainant and the injured are proved by the prosecution through their respective MLC's Ex. C1 & C2 respectively.
6. In view of the foregoing, I hold the accused guilty of the offence punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC. He stands convicted accordingly. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict. Be put on 05.02.11 at 2 pm for hearing the convict on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open court on 01.02.11 (Satish Kumar Arora) Metropolitan Magistrate KKD Courts, Delhi State vs. Kishori Lal FIR No. 321/00, PS Trilok Puri Page No. 12 of 12