Delhi District Court
State vs Rakesh on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RISHABH KAPOOR, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS -01 NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI State Vs. : Rakesh FIR No : 124/2016 U/s : 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. : Narela JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Case No. : 5295128/16 2. Date of commission of offence : 04.02.2016 3. Date of institution of the case : 14.05.2016 4. Name of the complainant : State
5. Name and parentage of accused : Rakesh s/o Sh. Om Prakash
6. Offense complained or n proved : U/s 279/304A/337 IPC
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date on which order was reserved : 10.04.2026
9. Final order : Acquitted
10. Date of final order : 18.04.2026 State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 1/16
1. The accused Rakesh is facing trial for offences u/s 279/304A/337 IPC. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 04.02.2016 at about 04:15 PM, at Narela-Bawana Road, in front of Petrol Pump, within the jurisdiction of PS Narela, the accused was allegedly driving a Swift car bearing registration no. DL-8CAM-8215 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. It is alleged that while driving the said vehicle, the accused hit a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SAC-1623 from behind. At the time of the accident, the said motorcycle was being driven by Sh. Shashi Kant, with Smt. Kamla Devi as a pillion rider. Due to the impact of the collision, both riders sustained injuries and were removed to hospital. As per the medical record, Smt. Kamla Devi sustained simple injuries, whereas Sh. Shashi Kant suffered grievous injuries and subsequently, succumbed to the same during treatment, thereby converting the case into one under Section 304-A IPC.
2. Upon receipt of DD entry, police reached the spot and thereafter the Hospital, collected the MLCs of the injured persons, and recorded the statement of the complainant/injured. During investigation, the offending vehicle was identified and seized, along with the motorcycle. The mechanical inspection of both vehicles was conducted. The accused was apprehended, and relevant documents including driving licence, registration certificate and insurance documents were taken into State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 2/16 possession. The post-mortem of the deceased Shashi Kant was conducted, and the cause of death was opined to be consequent to injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The statements of witnesses were also recorded under Section 161 CrPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC.
3. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offences was taken by the Ld. Predecessor Court and on the basis of material available on record, notice of accusation for offences u/s 279/304A/337 IPC was framed and served upon accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to establish guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all.
5. Thereafter, the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein all the incriminating circumstances were put to accused. The accused did not lead evidence in his defense. In the statement u/s 313 Cr. PC accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated by the police and that the incident did not take place due to rash or negligent driving of vehicle by him but he was falsely implicated by police in the present case.
6. Ld. APP for State has contended that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts with the help of coherent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the alleged offences. It is submitted that PW-2 Smt. Kamla Devi, being the injured State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 3/16 eye witness, has clearly deposed that the accused was driving the offending vehicle and had hit the motorcycle from behind. It has been argued that testimony of PW-2 is natural, trustworthy and inspires confidence. It is further argued that the identity of the accused as well as the offending vehicle stands established from the testimony of PW-2 coupled with the investigation carried out by PW- 6 (IO) and that the death of Shashi Kant due to injuries sustained in the accident is duly proved through MLC and post-mortem report, the genuineness of which has been admitted by the accused u/s 294 CrPC. It is contended that minor contradictions, if any, do not go to the root of the case and the accused deserves to be convicted.
7. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of the police. It has also been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that the alleged incident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle by the accused. It has been contended that there exist serious doubts in the prosecution story and hence, accused is liable to be acquitted for the alleged offences. It is submitted that PW-2 did not disclose the number of the offending vehicle in her initial statement and the source of disclosure of the vehicle number remains unexplained. It is further argued that PW-3, the alleged eye witness, has not supported the prosecution and has given a completely different version, thereby creating serious doubt. It is contended that PW-4 is not an eye witness and the entire case rests upon a shaky and unreliable testimony of PW-2. It is also argued that mere high speed or rear collision does not State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 4/16 ipso-facto establish rashness or negligence. Hence, benefit of doubt be granted to the accused.
8. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the prosecution and defense and have also gone through the case record carefully.
9. Prior to delving into the merits of the contentions advanced on behalf of parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses.
(i) PW-1 Sh. Pankaj deposed that on 07.02.2016, he identified the dead body of his cousin Shashi Kant Verma at the mortuary of BJRM Hospital, Jahangir Puri. He proved his identification statement as Ex. PW1/A.
(ii) PW-2 Smt. Kamla Devi was one of injured victim and complainant in the present case. She deposed that on 04.02.2016, she was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle driven by her son-in-law Shashi Kant and at about Narela-Bawana Road near a Petrol Pump, while they were waiting to take a turn, a Swift Dzire car bearing No. DL-8CAM-
8215 came from behind and hit their motorcycle. She deposed that due to the impact, both of them fell down and sustained injuries, and her son-in-law became unconscious. She stated that they were taken to hospital and her son-in-law later succumbed to injuries. She proved her statement Ex. PW2/A and subsequent statement Ex. PW2/B. She correctly identified the accused in Court. She also identified photographs of the offending vehicle Ex. P1 & P2 and of the motorcycle Ex. P3 & P4. Thereafter, she was encountered with the questions in the nature of cross-examination by LD. State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 5/16 APP for State, wherein , she stated that the accused was not arrested in her presence, though she identified her signatures on arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW2/C and PW2/D. In her cross-examination by defence, she denied that the accident occurred due to negligence of her son- in-law or that he was under intoxication. She also denied that the accused had not caused the accident or that she was deposing falsely.
(iii) PW-3 Sh. Vikas deposed that he saw a man and a woman in an accidental condition near the divider at Narela-Bawana Road and that the accused took them to the hospital. He initially did not support the prosecution version and stated that he does not know anything further and thereafter, during his cross-examination by Ld. APP for State, he admitted that he was present in the offending vehicle at the time of incident and that the accused was driving the vehicle. He, however expressed ignorance about the registration number and the exact manner of accident and stated that he had only taken a lift from the accused. He denied being influenced by the accused.
(iv) PW-4 Sh. Satender Kumar deposed that on 04.02.2016, his brother-in-law Shashi Kant and his mother Kamla Devi met with an accident involving the offending car at Narela-Bawana Road, and that Shashi Kant later expired during treatment while his mother sustained injuries. He further stated that on 20.02.2016, his mother identified the accused at PS Narela and the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW2/C and State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 6/16 PW2/D. He correctly identified the accused in Court. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of accident and that he is not an eye witness.
(v) PW-5 Ct. Raghubir deposed that on 07.02.2016, he joined the investigation with IO/ASI Ramesh Chand and went to Max Hospital and thereafter to BJRM Hospital Mortuary where identification of the dead body was conducted. He proved the dead body identification memo Ex. PW5/A and also identified his signatures on handing over memo Ex. A8. He stated that after post-mortem, the body was handed over to the relatives. He denied that he had not joined the investigation.
(vi) PW-6 SI Ramesh Chand was the IO in the present case. He deposed that on 04.02.2016, upon receipt of DD No. 66B, he reached the spot and found the motorcycle in accidental condition. He further deposed that he went to MB Hospital where he collected MLCs of injured Shashi Kant and Kamla Devi (Ex. A3 and A4). He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Kamla Devi prepared rukka Ex. PW6/A, and got the FIR registered. He further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW6/B and seized the motorcycle vide memo Ex. PW6/C. He further deposed that notice u/s 133 MV Act Ex. PW6/D, was served upon the registered owner of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that the owner produced the vehicle and disclosed that the accused was driving it at the relevant time. He further deposed that the offending vehicle was seized vide memo Ex. PW6/E. He stated that on State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 7/16 07.02.2016, injured Shashi Kant expired and post- mortem was conducted. He proved post-mortem report Ex. A5 and handing over memo Ex. A8. He further deposed that he also got conducted mechanical inspection of both vehicles , after which reports Ex. A10 and A11, were issued . He further deposed that the accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/D. He further deposed that he seized the driving licence of the accused vide memo Ex. PW6/F. He correctly identified the accused and also identified photographs of the offending vehicle (Ex. P1 & P2) and motorcycle (Ex. P3 & P4). In his cross-examination, he stated that he reached the spot and hospital during investigation, recorded statements of witnesses. He denied that the accused was falsely implicated or that the accident had not occurred in the manner alleged.
(vii) PW-7 HC Hemraj deposed that on 04.02.2016, on receipt of DD No. 66B, he along with IO reached the spot where a motorcycle was found in accidental condition. He further deposed that the injured had already been shifted to hospital and that IO went to Hospital while he remained at the spot. He further deposed that later, IO prepared rukka and handed it over to him for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to PS, got FIR registered, and returned to the spot with copy of FIR and rukka. He further deposed that the motorcycle was seized vide memo Ex. PW6/C. In his cross-examination, he stated that 1-2 public State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 8/16 persons were present at the spot but their statements were not recorded in his presence. He denied that he had not joined the investigation or that he was deposing falsely.
(viii) The accused has also admitted the genuineness of DD Entry No. 66B (Ex. A1), FIR No. 124/16 (Ex. A2), MLCs of injured persons (Ex. A3 & A4), Post- mortem report (Ex. A5), DD No. 29B (Ex. A6), Surety bonds (Ex. A7), Dead body handing over memo (Ex. A8), Superdarinama (Ex. A9) and Mechanical inspection reports of both vehicles (Ex. A10 & A11) vide his statement u/s 294 Cr. PC and pursuant thereto, the formal witnesses with respect to the above-mentioned documents were dropped from the list of witnesses.
10. Having discussed the evidences on record, now let us advert ourselves to the merits of the present case. The accused has been indicted for offences u/s 279/304A/337 IPC.
11. The allegations are to the extent that on 04.02.2016 at around 04:15 PM at Narela-Bawana Road in front of Petrol Pump from Narela towards Bawana, the accused was driving swift car bearing no. DL-8CAM-8215 in a high speed and rash or negligent manner and while driving the aforesaid vehicle, he struck the same with motorcycle bearing no. DL-8SAC-1623 on which victims Kamla Devi and Shashikant were riding and during the said incident, victim Kamla Devi sustained simple injuries and her son-in-law Shashikant unfortunately succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, thereby constituting State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 9/16 offences u/s 279/304A/337 IPC.
12. The position of law with respect to offence u/s 279 IPC is being discussed hereinafter;
It is a settled law that Section 279 IPC punishes the act of a person driving or riding a vehicle on a 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. In the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while discussing about the ingredients of section 279 has observed:-
"In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section 304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be proved".
13. Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been described by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh decided on 28.07.2000, in the following words:-
"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 State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 10/16 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."
14. Besides this, it has also been upheld in various de- cisions that evidence of high speed simpliciter, is not ipso facto proof of rashness or negligence.
In the case of Rajiv Netra Panigrahi Vs. State of Or- risa decided on 20.07.1990, Hon'ble Orrisa High Court observed the following:-
"It is no doubt true, as contended on behalf of the peti- tioner and as supported by authorities, that high speed in driving of a vehicle does not by itself amount to rash and negligent driving. If the accused driver was driving the ve- hicle on the highway and had negotiated the distance safely, it could not have been said that he was driving rashly or negligently because of the high speed."
15. In the case of Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State de- cided on 12.11.2018 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has ob- served:-
"17. A witness can depose as to the manner of driving or speed at which the vehicle was being driven but not ren- der an opinion on "rash and negligence". High speed by itself may not in each case be sufficient to hold that a driver is rash or negligent. Speed alone is not the crite- rion for deciding the rashness or negligence on the part of the driver."
State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 11/16 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Abdul Subhan (Supra), also observed that: "The aforesaid observations of the Supreme Court make it more than clear that a mere allegation of high speed would not tantamount to rashness or negligence. In the present case also, I find that apart from the allegation that the truck was being driven at a very high speed there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner acted in a manner which could be re- garded as rash or negligent."
16. Further in Abdul Subhan (Supra), the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish 1998 SCC (CRI) 1508 was also discussed in which Hon'ble Supreme Court ob- served:-
"3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held the re- spondent guilty for offences under Section 337, 338 and 304A IPC after recording a finding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific find- ing has been recorded either by the trial court or by the first appellate court to the effect that the respondent was driving the truck either negligently or rashly. After holding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed", both the courts pressed into aid the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to hold the respondent guilty.
4. Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rash- ness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approxi- mately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 12/16 bring on record material to establish as to what is meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no pre- sumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor".
17. Apart from the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused. Whereas, in order to hold a person liable for offences u/s 304A IPC and 337 IPC, the prosecution is also duty bound to establish that the death of victim Shashikant and simple injuries suf- fered by victim Kamla Devi were resultant consequences of the acts of rash or negligence of accused.
18. At the very outset, it is not in dispute that an acci- dent took place on 04.02.2016 at Narela-Bawana Road and that Shashi Kant sustained injuries and subsequently expired. The said fact stands duly corroborated from the MLCs and post-mortem report (Ex. A3 to A5), the gen- uineness of which has been admitted by the accused. However, the crucial question which requires adjudication State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 13/16 is whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of accused Rakesh while driving car No. DL-8CAM-8215? The prosecution primarily relies upon the testimony of PW-2 Smt. Kamla Devi, who is the in- jured witness. Being an injured witness, her testimony or- dinarily carries great evidentiary value. She has categori- cally deposed that the offending vehicle hit the motorcy- cle from behind. However, certain material aspects emerge from her testimony which create doubt. Firstly, in her initial statement Ex. PW2/A, she did not mention the registration number of the offending vehicle. The prose- cution has failed to explain as to how the vehicle number surfaced in the rukka and FIR within a short span of time. This unexplained gap casts a shadow on the prosecution story. Secondly, PW-2 has not given any specific descrip- tion of rashness or negligence in terms of speed, manner of driving, or any overt act of the accused. A mere state- ment that the vehicle hit from behind, without more, is not sufficient to establish rash or negligent driving in the ab- sence of surrounding circumstances.
19. Thirdly, PW-3 Vikas, who was projected as an eye witness, has not supported the prosecution version and has rather stated that he saw the injured persons already lying in accidental condition near the divider. Though he admitted that the accused was driving the vehicle, he did not support the manner of accident as alleged by the prosecution. His testimony thus creates a dent in the prosecution case. Further, PW-4 is admittedly not an eye witness and his testimony is only hearsay in nature.
State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 14/16
20. The investigation also suffers from certain infirmi- ties. Apparently, no independent public witnesses have been examined during the investigation despite availabil- ity. Even the source of identification of the accused during investigation also remains doubtful in view of contradic- tions in the testimony of PW-2 regarding arrest and identi- fication. It is settled law that to bring home an offence un- der Sections 279/304-A IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused was driving in a manner so rash or neg- ligent as to endanger human life. Mere occurrence of an accident or even high speed is not sufficient to attribute criminal liability unless the element of rashness or negli- gence is clearly established. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to bring on record cogent and con- vincing evidence to prove rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution case create a reasonable doubt, the benefit of which must go to the accused.
21. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Rakesh was driving the offending car at the time of accident; and that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The evidence on record raises multiple doubts regarding identification, manner of accident, and fairness of investigation. Even if for the sake of arguments we assume the fact that the ac- cused was driving the alleged offending vehicle at the time of incident, still the case of prosecution cannot be State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 15/16 said to have been established as the there are no evi- dences led by the prosecution to establish the existence of any rash or negligent act of driving on the part of the accused. The careful perusal of testimony of PW-2 goes on to reveal that during the course of their deposition, she not stated anything the manner in which the accused was driving the vehicle so as to impute a rash or negligent act of driving on his part. There are also no other evidences led by the prosecution suggesting that the vehicle was driven by the accused during the time of incident in a rash or negligent manner or not. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the testimony of PW-2 as well as the other material witnesses examined by prosecution are of no avail for establishing the necessary ingredients for hold- ing the accused liable for the alleged offences.
22. In view of the foregoing appreciation of evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Rakesh for the offences for which he has been charged, therefore, the accused deserves to be acquitted. The accused Rakesh is accordingly ac- quitted for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304-A IPC Announced in the open Court on 18.04.2026.
Digitally signed by RISHABHRISHABH KAPOOR KAPOOR Date:
2026.04.18 16:00:25 +0530 (Rishabh Kapoor) JMFC-01, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi 18.04.2026 State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 16/16 State Vs: Rakesh FIR No: 124/16 U/s: 279/304A/337 IPC P.S. Narela 17/16