Delhi District Court
State vs . Naveen Kumar on 1 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF Ms. PRIGYA GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 08(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
*****
JUDGMENT
FIR No. : 112/11 PS : Kamla Market U/s 279/304A IPC and Sec. 185 MV Act State vs. Naveen Kumar A. Case No. : 287473/16 B. Date of Institution of Case : 16.03.2012 C. Date of Commission of Offence : 23/24.12.2011 D. Name of the complainant : Mohd. Habib E. Name of the Accused & his : Naveen Kumar Parentage & Address S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar r/o H. No. 20, Harijan Mohalla, Village Hamidpur, Delhi F. Offence complained of : u/s 279/304A IPC and Sec. 185 MV Act G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty H. Order reserved on : 24.10.2019 I. Final order : Acquittal J. Date of such order : 01.02.2020 Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
1. Succinctly put, the case of the prosecution is that on 23/24.12.2011 at about 01:35 am, in front of Kotha no. 68, MCD Parking, G B Road, Delhi, the accused was found driving motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAW0282 under the influence of liquour in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.1/14 and public safety and at aforesaid date, time and place while driving the aforesaid vehicle in aforesaid manner accused had hit against one Mohd. Rewar and caused his death by an act not amounting to culpable homicide.
2. After the usual investigation, the charge sheet for the offences u/s 279/304A IPC read with Sec. 185 M. V. Act was prepared against the accused.
The aforementioned charge sheet was filed before the court on 16.03.2012 whereupon the cognizance of the offences was taken against the accused. The copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. After hearing the arguments, the accused was given notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C on 14.05.2012 for the alleged commission of the offences u/s 279/304A IPC and Sec. 185 M. V. Act to which the accused pleaded "Not Guilty" & instead claimed trial.
4. In support of its version, prosecution has examined sixteen witnesses.
5. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded separately wherein accused claimed to be innocent and denied the allegations against him. Thereafter, accused led Defence Evidence.
6. I have heard learned APP for State and learned counsel for accused. I have perused the record.
At the very outset of deliberations, a brief recapitulation of the testimonies of the witnesses becomes indispensable.
PW1 Mohd. Khalif has deposed that on the intervening night of 23/24.12.2011, he was giving slips to the persons who had parked the vehicles in front of Kotha no. 68, G B Road, Delhi. Mohd. Rebar was also cutting parking slips alongwith him. At about 1.35 am, one motorcycle came from the State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.2/14 side of Ajmeri Gate in fast speed and in rash and negligent manner and struck against Mohd. Rebar due to which Mohd. Rebar fell down and received the injuries and became unconscious. The offending motorcycle was of make CBZ of black and red colour bearing no. DL8SAW0282. Motorcycle rider also fell down. The motorcycle rider was apprehended by him at the spot with the help of public persons. He has correctly identified the accused. He alongwith some persons took the injured and the accused to the hospital. The accused was handed over to the police. His statement Ex.PW1/A bears his signature at point A. Accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively. The offending motorcycle was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. The RC and insurance of the motorcycle were produced by the accused. The same were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. DL of accused was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. He has correctly identified the motorcycle Ex.P1 and the photographs of the motorcycle Mark A. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
PW2 Mohd. Allauddin and PW3 Mohd. Anwar have deposed that on 26.12.2011, they identified the body of deceased Rebar Islam at the mortuary of MAMC. After postmortem the dead body was handed over to them vide handing over memo Ex.PW2/A. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
PW4 Dr. Anju Rani has deposed that on 26.12.2011, he alongwith Dr. Anand Pawar conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Rahbar Islam, aged 26 years, male vide PM report no. 1225/11 Ex.PW4/A which is in the handwriting of Dr. Anand Pawar. She was acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr. Anand Pawar as he worked with her during the course of their duty. The cause of death in the present case was cranio cerebral damage consequent to blunt force trauma to head. All injuries were ante mortem, fresh, caused by blunt force trauma possible in road traffic accident. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.3/14 PW5 Retired SI Manohar Lal Dhyani testified that on 27.12.2011, he mechanically inspected the motorcycle bearing no. DL8SAW0282 make Hero Honda CBZ at the request of IO vide his report Ex. PW5/A. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
PW6 Dr. Shilpi has deposed that on 24.12.2011, injured Rewar s/o Unknown, aged about 25 years, male brought by Mohd. Habib with alleged history of road traffic accident at G B Road, Kamla Market. She mechanically examined the injured vide MLC No. 203884/11 Ex.PW6/A. The injured was referred to neurosurgery department for further examination. Witness is re examined by Ld. APP for state in which she deposed that the MLC was not prepared by her. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
PW7 HC Sunil has deposed that on the intervening night of 23/24.12.2011, he was on night patrolling duty in the area of division no. V, G B Road. At about 1.30 am, when he reached opposite Kotha no. 68, MCD parking, he saw a crowd gathered there. On enquiry, he came to know that the injured and the accused had already been taken to the hospital. There, he also saw a motorcycle in an accidental condition bearing registration of DL8SAW 0282. On enquiry, it was found that it was the same motorcycle, which had caused the accident. He called duty officer and thereafter, HC Mahesh came to the spot. HC Mahesh left him at the spot and went to the hospital. HC Mahesh alongwith accused came back to the spot. He correctly identified the accused. HC Mahesh handed over to him one tehrir of Mohd. Habib for registration of FIR. He came to the PS, got registered the present case, came back to the spot and handed over the printed copy of FIR and the orginal tehrir to HC Mahesh. HC Mahesh seized the DL, RC and insurance of the accused vide memo Ex.PW1/E and Ex.PW1/F. He has correctly identified RC of vehicle, one insurance issued by ICICI Lombard of vehicle and one licence in the name of Naveen Kumar which were seized by HC Mahesh Ex.P2. The said motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex.PW1/D. Accused was arrested and personally State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.4/14 searched vide memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
PW8 Ct. Subhash has deposed that on 23.12.2011, he made a departure entry of night patrolling staff vide DD no 74B Ex.PW8/A at 10.10 pm. He also made a DD entry no.3B Ex.PW8/B at around 1.45 am on the call of Ct. Sunil regarding the accident. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
PW9 Dr. Deepak has deposed that on 24.12.2011, Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Naresh Kumar was brought by Praveen Kumar for medical examination. The aforesaid patient was medically examined by him and Dr. Naveen. The MLC Ex.PW9/A was prepared by Dr. Naveen in his handwriting and it bears his signatures at point A. He identified his signature as he had seen him writing and putting signatures in course of his duty. As per MLC, smell of alcohol was observed in the breath of the patient. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
PW10 Sanjeev Kumar brought the summoned record i.e. MLC death summary of deceased Rawar, aged about 25 years, CR No. 008352 dated 24.12.2011. The original MLC death summary already placed on record is duly signed by Dr. Banwari Lal, SR, Neuro Surgery, who was posted Neuro Surgery department, Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi and Dr. Banwari Lal left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts are not known. He identified the signature of Dr. Banwari Lal at point A on MLC death summary Ex.PW10/A as he acquainted with the handwriting and signature of Dr.Banwari Lal and had worked with him. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
PW11 Retired SI Bodh Raj proved the present FIR as Ex. PW11/B and endorsement vide DD no. 10A made by him on Rukka as Ex. PW11/A. PW12 Sh. Gopal Krishna brought the summoned record i.e. vehicle particulars of motorcycle no. DL8SAW0282. As per record, the said motorcycle was registered in the name of Sh. Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Naresh State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.5/14 Kumar, r/o 103, Harijan Mohalla, Village Hamidpur, Delhi36 on 06.06.2010 vide application no. DL17070000962924 vide registration no. DL8SAW0282. The attested copy of vehicle particulars exhibited as Ex.PW12/A. PW13 Jai Karan brought the attested copy of driving licence no. DL 1120100116154 issued in the name of Naveen Kumar S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, r/o 103, Harijan Mohalla, Village, Hamidpur, Delhi for driving light motor vehicle. The attested copy of record of DL exhibited as Ex.PW13/A. PW14 ASI Mahesh Tyagi has deposed that on 23.12.2011, he received DD no.3B Ex.PW8/B. He reached at the spot i.e. in front of Kotha no. 68, near MCD Parking, G B Road, Delhi where Ct. Sunil met him. One motorcycle no. DL8SAW0282 make CBZ was parked there. Ct. Sunil told him that the driver of said motorcycle had caused accident to a person. He came to know through public person that injured and the motorcyclist, who had caused the accident, had been taken to hospital by the public persons. He left Ct. Sunil a the spot and thereafter, he reached at JPN Hospital. Injured Rehbar was found admitted in the hospital, who was declared unfit for the statement. Nature of injuries were opined as grievous on the MLC. Complainant Mohd. Abib and motorcyclist Naveen Kumar met him in the hospital. He has correctly identified the accused. He alongwith Mohd. Abib and accused Naveen Kumar returned at the spot. He recorded the statement of Mohd. Habib Ex.PW1/A. He prepared rukka vide his endorsement Ex.PW14/A. He handed over rukka to Ct. Sunil Kumar for registration of FIR. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW14/B at the instance of the complainant. Ct. Sunil Kumar returned at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and rukka, who handed over the same to him. He seized the aforesaid motorcycle vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He also seized the RC and insurance of said motorcycle vide memo Ex.PW1/E. He arrested and personally searched the accused vide memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C respectively. He seized the DL of accused vide memo Ex.PW1/F. He has correctly identified motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW0282 in photographs Ex.P1. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.6/14 PW15 SI Ram Kishan has deposed that on 26.12.2011, the case file was marked to him for further investigation. The dead body of deceased was already preserved by the previous IO in the mortuary. The postmortem on the body of deceased was got conducted. He received postmortem report Ex.PW15/A. The dead body of deceased Rehbar Islam was identified by Ruhalla and Mohd. Abdulla. He recorded their statements Ex.PW15/B and Ex.PW15/C respectively. The dead body was handed over to them vide receipt Ex.PW2/A. He served notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex.PW15/D to the registered owner of the motorcycle no. DL8SAW0282 namely Naveen Kumar. He has correctly identified the accused. The accused replied the notice being the registered owner of the aforesaid motorcycle vide endorsement from X to X1 on Ex.PW15/D. The offending motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAW0282 was got medically inspected vide mechanical inspection report Ex.PW5/A. The relevant documents of said motorcycle was got verified. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
PW16 Ct. Ajay Kumar has deposed that in the intervening night of 23/24.12.2011, he was on duty at JPN Hospital from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. At about 1.48 am, one injured namely Rahwar was admitted in the hospital, who received injury in road accident and two persons namely Habib and Naveen had accompanied the injured. He informed at police station Kamla Market regarding the admission of injured in the hospital. The witness was duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
The prosecution examined 16 witnesses. Thereafter, the statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC. The accused then led defence evidence.
DW1 Anil Kumar Jha has deposed that in the intervening night of 23/24.12.2011, he alongwith accused went to the house of bua of the accused Naveen on the bike, which was being driven by accused Naveen. The registration number of that bike was DL8SAW0282 which is a black and red CBZ motorcycle. After repairing the computer of bua of accused Naveen, they State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.7/14 left her house at about 12.00 12.15 midnight. The bua of the accused resides at Bhogai, Nizamuddin. The accused had to drop him at his house for which they took the route via CP towards, New Delhi Railway Station. They took the route of G B Road. They saw that threefour persons were running and one person was lying on the road. They stopped there. They tried to pick up that person, who was lying on the road, but there threefour persons came and they apprehended them. Police came at the spot and his statement was recorded. He had signed at that statement and left the spot. No accident took place with their vehicle. The injured was already lying on the road.
7. Before proceeding for the appreciation of the evidence, the cardinal principle of criminal law is to be borne in mind, that the prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
The first allegation which has been levelled against the accused is that on the date of incident, he was found driving his motorcycle under the influence of liquor, in a rash and negligent manner and while doing so, he had hit one Mohd. Rewar who consequently died of the injuries sustained by him.
8. To prove the offence punishable u/s 279/304A IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following mandatory ingredients: (i) The rash or State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.8/14 negligent act / driving which is likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person and (ii) that the said rash or negligent act / driving of the accused was the proximate cause of death of victim.
The term "rash and negligent driving" came up for consideration by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2001 (2) MWN (Cr.) SC 77 : (2000 Cri LJ 3508) (Mohammed Aynuddina alias Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh) An excerpt from it would run thus:
"A rash act is primarily an over hasty 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 caution".
At this stage, it is relevant to quote the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Rathnashalvan v. State of Karnataka AIR 2007 SC 1064 while dealing with a case u/s 304A IPC:
7. ...Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.(underlining added) As noted above, "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.9/14 and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
Similar observations were made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "P.B. Desai vs. State of Maharashtra" (2013) 15 SCC 481, "Ravi Kapur vs State of Rajasthan" (2012) 9 SCC 285 & "State of Karnataka vs. Murlidhar" (2009) 4 SCC 463. In the case of Murlidhar (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the observations of "Lord Atkin in Andrews vs. Director of Public Prosecutions" (1937) 2 All ER 552 (HL). Hon'ble Supreme Court defined and explained the concept of criminal rashness and negligence even in case titled Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2008) 14 SCC 795 while referring to Halsbury Laws of England and Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law.
Evaluating the facts and evidence, in light of the above said edicts, I proceed further to deliberate on the evidence on record.
The story of the prosecution rested upon the testimony of the sole eyewitness i.e. PW1 Mohd. Khalif who deposed that on the fateful night at about 1.35 am, the accused while driving his motorcycle at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner had struck against Mohd. Rewar due to which Mohd. Rewar became unconscious. The accused was apprehended at the spot and was handed over to the police. The very bare perusal of testimony of eye witness reveals that the witness has made bald statement to the effect that the accused was driving the motorcycle at a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. As per the testimony of witness, the deceased Mohd. Rewar and he were giving parking slips when the accident occurred. The witness has not disclosed the exact location of the deceased or that of the offending vehicle. It is not mentioned as to whether deceased was standing on the road or in the parking State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.10/14 area. The site plan Ex.PW14/B also does not reflect the exact location where the accident had taken place. The witness has not described or expounded upon the manner in which the vehicle was being driven. He has also not mentioned the speed, exact or approximate of the offending vehicle. The witness has not delineated upon the alleged act of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused.
The witness has only made a bald statement that the accused was driving in a rash and negligent manner. The element of rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is to be proved by leading cogent evidence to that effect. A mere deposition to the effect that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner would not suffice. The manner in which the vehicle was being driven needs to be elucidated. Whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle in a zigzag manner or in some other negligent manner has not been brought on record. The subjective opinion of the witness qua rash or negligent driving can not substitute the objective criteria for deciding the essential elements of 'rash or negligent' act by the accused required for offence u/s 279 IPC. No positive evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the manner of driving of the bus by the accused. In the case titled as "Vinod kumar vs. State"
2012 (1) RCR (Criminal) 567, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"No evidence or any other material was placed on record by the prosecution to show the manner in which the Petitioner was driving the said vehicle to prove the rashness and negligence of the Petitioner. No photographs of the spot or the bus have been taken. PW10 the alleged eye witness to the incident has also not deposed anything in regard to the accident or manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the Petitioner, except making a bald statement that the driver of the bus was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which does not prove the guilt of the Petitioner. There is no evidence placed on record to show the speed of the vehicle or the manner in which it was being driven to show rashness and negligence on the part of the Petitioner, especially when the area was a crowded State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.11/14 one."
The only circumstance that is given is that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed. High speed by itself can not be accepted as an incidence of rashness and negligence.
The Supreme Court in the case of "State of Karnataka v. Satish" 1998 SCC (CRI) 1508 made an observation to the effect that driving at a highspeed by itself does not imply negligence or rashness. Negligence or rashness would have to be established as a fact.
On this aspect reliance is also placed on judgment titled as "Abdul Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" 133 (2006) DLT 562 It was held therein:
"I may also note that I am of the view that the testimony of PW 3 head constable Munim Dutt, even if taken to be entirely true only leads to the conclusion that the vehicle driven by the present petitioner was being driven at a highspeed. This in itself does not mean that the petitioner was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently."
While elucidating upon the aspects for proving the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused it was further held:
"There are so many questions which remain unanswered. What is meant by highspeed? Were the traffic lights working or not? Why was the investigating officer not examined? Why were photographs not taken? Why is there no evidence with regard to tyre skid marks? Why was the site plan not exhibited? There are questions which remain unanswered pertaining to the motorcyclist who unfortunately lost his life in this incident. Was the motorcyclist on Mathura Road? What was his direction of movement? Was he coming from Sher Shah Road and turning towards Mathura road? Or, was he on Mathura Road turning towards Sher Shah road? What was the speed of the motorcyclist? Did the motorcyclist suddenly curve into the path of the petitioner's truck? A host of other questions remain unanswered purely because the degree of investigation carried out and the quality of investigation carried out is quite unsatisfactory. It is well known in criminal cases that it is for State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.12/14 the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Unfortunately, in the present case I find that the prosecution has failed to achieve this standard. On the other hand there are grave doubts that the petitioner is at all guilty of the offences for which he has been convicted and sentenced."
In such a scenario, cogent evidence establishing the element of culpable negligence attributed to the accused should have been led. However, the prosecution has failed to do so. No details of the scene have been tendered in the evidence. The manner in which the vehicle was being driven, the position of the victim and the offending vehicle, the fact whether the victim was standing on the road or in the parking lot, nothing has been elucidated upon. The testimony of PW14 would reveal that the witness during his crossexamination has stated that he could not notice any skid marks on the road due to darkness. The incident as alleged occurred at 1.35 am. The said fact suggests that the area was probably not well lit. In such a scenario, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to lead evidence to the effect that there was sufficient light at the place of the accident. Low visibility due to darkness is a factor which seems to palliate the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, PW14 has also admitted that he had not clicked the photographs of the spot. No explanation has been tendered as to why no photographs were clicked. Furthermore, no evidence has been led to the effect that the accused was under the influence of alcohol. To prove the allegations as levelled against the accused U/s 185 MV Act, it was mandatory for the prosecution to prove that the alcohol content was exceeding 30 gm per 100 ml blood and that the accused was put to breath analyzer test for measuring the quantity of alcohol present in his blood at the time of driving the offending vehicle. It is settled principal of law that a certificate of medical practitioner cannot be a substitute to the breath test conducted using a breath analyzer. In the present case, the only evidence regarding the drunken driving is that the accused was smelling of alcohol as stated in the MLC. Pertinent it is to note that in such State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.13/14 a scenario, the quantity of alcohol present in the blood of the accused cannot be ascertained. Furthermore, PW9 during his crossexamination has duly admitted that no blood sample was taken to check the level or consumption of alcohol. He has also stated that no other test was conducted by the concerned doctor to check the presence of alcohol in the blood of the accused. No other evidence has been put forth to prove the allegations u/s 185 MV Act, thus, in the absence of any conclusive evidence regarding the presence of alcohol in the blood of the accused as well as regarding specific content of alcohol measured by breath analyzer test, it cannot be said that the accused was driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol with alcohol content exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml of blood so as to attract the liability of section 185 MV Act.
There are thus a number of lapses in the evidence brought forth by the prosecution.
9. In view of the discussions in preceding paragraphs, Court is of the opinion that there are glaring doubts and ingredients of criminal rashness and negligence has also eluded the case of prosecution. As such, prosecution failed to successfully bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishable u/s 279/304A IPC and Sec. 185 MV Act through the testimony of examined witnesses. Accused is entitled to benefit of doubts in the case of prosecution.
Accused Naveen Kumar is, accordingly, acquitted of the offence u/s 279/304A IPC and 185 MV Act.
Announced in the open court on 01.02.2020 (PRIGYA GUPTA) Metropolitan Magistrate08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi State vs. Naveen Kumar FIR No. 112/11 PS Kamla Market Page no.14/14