Delhi District Court
State vs Kiran Pal on 21 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 877/2005
PS : Paschim Vihar
Offence complained of : 279/338 IPC
Date of commission of offence : 11.12.2003
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R6331552004
C C No. : 2166/2/10
State vs Kiran Pal
Kiran Pal
S/o Dhara Singh
R/o D-1/389, Sultanpuri
Delhi
............. Accused
Suresh Kumar
S/o Baldev
R/o WZ-846, A-2
Rattan Park, New Delhi
........... Complainant
Date of Institution : 25.02.2004
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Date of reserving judgment/ order : 10.08.2015
Date of pronouncement : 21.08.2015
Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1.Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/338 IPC.
FIR No. 877/03 u/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Kiran Pal 1/7
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 11.12.2003 at about 10.00 am at Jawalaheri Road, opposite house no. B-2/12, Kishan Hari Mandir, Paschim Vihar falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Paschim Vihar, the accused Kiran Pal was found driving one Qualis car bearing number DL-4C-2816 in a rash and negligent manner. It has been alleged that the accused hit against one scooter bearing no. HR 10D-1082 and caused grievous injuries to one scooterist Radhey Shyam. Thus, accused Kiran Pal is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC.
FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the statement of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 877/2003 under section 279/338 IPC was lodged at Police Station Paschim Vihar.
CHARGE
4. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed.The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet and other documents as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused Kiran Pal on 21.10.2005 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. JUDICIAL RESOLUTION
6. To bring home the guilt of rash and negligent driving to the accused, three things need to be proved by the prosecution, that too beyond any reasonable doubt. The three essential ingredients are as follows:-
(1)That the accident actually took place.
FIR No. 877/03 u/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Kiran Pal 2/7 (2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving. (3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
7. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 10 witnesses, out of which, only three witnesses have been examined.
8. PW-1 Suresh Kumar deposed that in the year 2003, one day when he came out of the ATM, he saw that one person who was going on a scooter was hit by a Qualis the number of which he did not remember. As a result of this, scooter rider fell down and sustained injuries. He did not remember the driver who was driving the Qualis at the time of accident. He was cross examined by the Ld. APP after taking permission from the court. During cross examination, witness admitted that police had made inquiries from him and recorded his statement. The statement Ex.PW1/A was shown, read over and explained to the witness. However, he did not remember whether the registration number of the offending car Qualis was DL-4CR-2816. He did not remember whether the number of the scooter which was hit by the Qualis car was HR-1082 make Bajaj Chetak. Attention of the witness was drawn towards the accused Kiran Pal. However, this witness failed to identify the accused and stated that he is not aware whether the accused was driving the car at that time or not. He denied the suggestion that he is intentionally not telling the truth as he has been won over by the accused.
9. PW-2 Madhusudan Malhotra deposed that he was the registered owner/superdar of the vehicle registration no. DL-4CR-2816. On the day of incident, his driver Kiran Pal was driving the aforesaid vehicle. He was informed by the police about the accident on the said day. A notice under Section 133 M.V. Act Ex.PW2/A was FIR No. 877/03 u/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Kiran Pal 3/7 served upon him and thereafter, he got the same released on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW2/B. He sold the same after taking permission from the court.
10.During cross examination, he admitted that on the day of incident, he was having one more vehicle. He denied the suggestion that at that time he was having one more driver. He admitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of the accident in question. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not driving the offending vehicle on the day of accident as he was on leave. He denied the suggestion that he had wrongly informed the police about the role of accused being the driver of the offending vehicle on the day of accident.
11.PW-3 Anil Kumar deposed that in the year 2003, he used to work at United Hues, Photo Studio which was located at B/2/19, DDA Market, Paschim Vihar. He did not remember the exact date on which he had taken the photograph of the vehicle no.DL4CR 2816. The negatives of the said photographs are Ex.P1 (colly). He identified three photographs as Ex. PW2/C which were taken by them. During cross examination, he stated that he did not keep any record of the photographs in their studio.
12.In the case at hand, the complainant has turned hostile and he has failed to support the story of the prosecution. He could neither identify the accused nor the offending vehicle in the court. The injured Radhey Shyam has expired. Another eye witness Vipin Malhotra has remained unserved even through the DCP. Accordingly, name of injured Radhey Shyam and eye witness Vipin Malhotra were dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 19.03.2015- and 10.08.2015. All the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and FIR No. 877/03 u/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Kiran Pal 4/7 none of them is a witness to the accident, sufficient only to prove that Radhey Shyam had received injuries and that an FIR with respect to the said incident was lodged on the same day at PS- Paschim Vihar vide FIR bearing No.877/03.
13.As the eye witness /complainant Suresh Kumar has turned hostile and failed to identify the accused, denying the entire prosecution story, and the another eye witness Vipin Malhotra has remained unserved even through DCP concerned and the injured Radhey Shyam has expired, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused by the vehicle bearing number DL4C-2816 which was being driven by the accused Kiran Pal in a rash and negligent manner. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC.
14.It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled "Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs." reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "In case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". In view of the said judgment, since nothing incriminating has come on record against the accused, PE was closed and recording the statement of accused was dispensed with.
FIR No. 877/03 u/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Kiran Pal 5/7
15.In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression.
Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
16.It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put to an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted. In the case at hand, the accused has been facing trial for last more than 10 years.
FIR No. 877/03 u/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Kiran Pal 6/7
17.In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with.
Final Order
18.Since one eye witness has turned hostile and the other eye witness has remained unserved as well as injured has expired and in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s.258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Kiran Pal qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC and hereby releases the accused Kiran Pal nder sections 279/338 IPC, which shall have the effect of acquittal.
19.As per section 437A Cr.P.C accused is admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount. ANNOUNCED ON 21.08.2015 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court /21.08.2015 FIR No. 877/03 u/s. 279/338 IPC State Vs. Kiran Pal 7/7