Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Anil Kumar & Anr. on 29 May, 2015

Challan No. 707­01921­14 and 707­01922­14
IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN, MM, TRAFFIC - 01 (NORTH 

          DISTRICT) ROHINI COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.


State v. Anil Kumar and Anr.

Challan no.: 707­01921­14 and 707­01922­14

Vehicle No.: DL 1VA 0077

Circle: RGC



Date of institution of the challan           :         19.04.2014

Date of Decision                             :         29.05.2015


JUDGMENT

(a) The date of commission of offence : 18.04.2014

(b) Name and Parentage of Accused(s) : Anil Kumar s/o Nathu Singh r/o C­338, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi­94 Vijay Singh s/o Shamant Singh r/o 1233, Timarpur, Delhi

(c) Offences complained of : Accused under Section 3/181, State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

146/196, 56/192, 39/192, 7/177, 99(1)/177, 66(1)/192A. Owner for offences under Section 5/180, 56/192, RRR 32/177, 39/192, 66(1)/192A and DMVR 99(1)/77

(d) Plea of both accused : Not Guilty

(e) The final order : Acquittal of both accused

(f) The date of such order : 29.05.2015 Brief statement of reasons for the decision--

1. The accused persons Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh are on trial for the commission of offences under Section 3/181, 146/196, 56/192, 39/192, 7/177, 99(1)/177, 66(1)/192A and 5/180, 56/192, RRR 32/177, 39/192, 66(1)/192A and DMVR 99(1)/77 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (referinafter referred to as M.V. Act) respectively.

2. The facts in brief as per the prosecution story are that on 18.04.2014 at about 1:00 pm at Ring Road in front of Kotak Mahindra Bank while coming from Britannia Chowk and going towards Brar Square the accused Anil Kumar was found without a valid license, valid insurance, valid fitness, without wearing proper uniform, without a PUC certificate. He was also State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

seen to be overtaking another vehicle bearing registration number HR 55D 3558 which is a violation of the guidelines issued by the hon'ble Supreme Court. He thus committed offences under sections 3/181, 146/196, 56/192, 39/192, 7/177, 99(1)/177, 66(1)/192A M.V. Act. The accused owner Vijay Singh was thus challaned under 5/180, 56/192, RRR 32/177, 39/192, 66(1)/192A and DMVR 99(1)/77.

3. Both accused appeared in the Court and were informed of the substance of the allegations against them, vide notice dated 26.07.2014 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To prove its case the prosecution examined three witnesses namely Ct. Pushpender as PW­1, Ct. Sagarmal as PW­2 and SI Govind Sahay as PW­3.

5. PW1 in his examination in chief stated that on 18.04.2014 he was posted at RGC as a constable. On that day he was on duty along with ZO SI Govind Sahay and Ct. Sagar at Ring Road in front of Kotak Mahindra Bank. He stated that at around 1:00pm he noticed one RTV bearing registration number DL 1VA 0077 overtaking a truck bearing registration number HR D 3558. He states that he was instructed by the ZO to stop the vehicle. He identified the accused correctly in court as the driver of the RTV. He further stated that the accused failed to produce his insurance, fitness, PUC certificate and driving licence. He further stated that the accused was not in State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

proper uniform. Challan was thus prepared by the ZO against him which is Ex. PW1/A against the accused bearing his signatures at point A. In his cross­examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that he had demanded a bribe from the accused. He stated that it was on instructions from the ZO that the challan was prepared. He stated that he saw the vehicle of the accused overtaking the other vehicle but he wouldnot be able to tell the speed of the accused's vehicle. He stated that the RTV was being driven in the first lane. He stated that the truck which had been overtaken was not stopped nor its driver questioned for the challan. He states the colour of the RTV to be white and stated that he didnt recall the colour of the truck. He states that the accused was challaned at around 1 pm. He further stated that he had carried the RTV to the pit that day. He states that he made an entry at the pit. It is further stated that the truck which was overtaken by the RTV was being plied in the correct lane i.e. the third lane. He denied the suggestion that the challan was about not getting the bribe asked for. He denied the suggestion that he misbehaved with the accused. He further stated that a constable can only stop a vehicle under instruction from a challaning officer. Furthermore, he stated that no public witness was joined in the investigation. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

6. PW­2 in his examination in chief stated that on 18.04.2014 he was posted at State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

RGC as a constable. On that day he was on duty along with ZO SI Govind Sahay and Ct. Pushpender at Ring Road in front of Kotak Mahindra Bank. He stated that at around 1:00pm he noticed one RTV bearing registration number DL 1VA 0077 overtaking a truck bearing registration number HR 55D 3558. He states that he and Ct. Pushpender were instructed by the ZO to stop the vehicle. He identified the accused correctly in court as the driver of the RTV. He further stated that the accused failed to produce his insurance, fitness, PUC certificate and driving licence. He further stated that the accused was not in proper uniform. Challan was thus prepared by the ZO against him which is Ex. PW1/A against the accused bearing his signatures at point B. He stated that they impounded the vehicle in the instant matter.

In his cross examination, he stated that a constable can only stop a vehicle under instruction from a challaning officer. He further stated that he could not state what was the exact speed of the RTV. He stated that no photographs were clicked of the truck which was overtaken. He denied the suggestion of having made a false challan and about demanding a bribe. Furthermore, he stated that no public witness was joined in the investigation. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

7. PW­3 in his examination in chief stated that on 18.04.2014 he was posted at RGC as a SI/ZO. On that day he was on duty along with Ct. Sagar, Ct. State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

Jitender and Ct. Pushpender at Ring Road in front of Kotak Mahindra Bank. He stated that at around 1:00pm he noticed one RTV bearing registration number DL 1VA 0077 overtaking a truck bearing registration number HR 55D 3558. He instructed Ct. Sagar and Ct. Pushpender to stop the vehicle. He identified the accused correctly in court as the driver of the RTV. He further stated that the accused failed to produce his insurance, fitness, PUC certificate and driving licence, on asking. He stated that the accused only showed a photocopy of permit and fitness certificate. He further stated that the accused was not in proper uniform. Challan was thus prepared by the ZO against him which is Ex. PW1/A against the accused bearing his signatures at point C. He stated that they impounded the vehicle in the instant matter and it was deposited in the pit through Ct. Pushpender.

In his cross examination, he stated that no site plan was prepared by him. He stated that no public persons were made witness to the challan proceedings. He stated that he didnot take any pictures. He stated that the he didnot stop the truck which was being overtaken, as it was being plied in the proper lane. He stated that he and the constables was the accused overtaking the truck. He stated that they had seen it at a distance of around 200 metres. He stated that the RTV was white in colour. He denied the suggestion that the he had detained the vehicle for 2­3 hours before issuing a challan. He stated that he had 4 constables on the spot but only 2 were State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

made as witnesses. He added voluntarily that the challaning machine allows only 2 additional witnesses. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

8. Statement of the accused Anil Kumar was recorded vide separate ordersheet under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) on 29.11.2014. The accused in his statement states that he was driving his vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1VA 0077 at 1:00pm when he was stopped in front of Kotak Mahindra Bank by Ct. Pushpender. He states that 3 other constables were present with him. He states that Ct. Pushpender told him that he was due to pay his monthly to them. He states that when he pleaded ignorance, Ct. Jitender present there stated that he would prepare a challan against him so that he would be able to understand. He stated that Ct. Jitender asked for Rs. 1100, Ct. Pushpender had interjected and asked for Rs. 2000 from him. He stated that there was no ZO to be found around. He further stated that he was carrying stuff for a wedding procession in his vehicle at that time. He stated that he requested the officials that he be allowed to drop off that stuff at Naraina, however they refused. He stated they impounded his vehicle and took it to the thana. He stated that he was made to sign a document stating that if any items got lost from the vehicle, it would be his fault. He further stated that he had to sleep with the vehicle overnight in the station itself. He stated that he was State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

given a copy of the challan at 4pm. He stated that the challan was falsely prepared against him.

9. Statement of the accused Vijay Singh was recorded vide separate ordersheet under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) on 19.05.2015. He stated that the accused driver had all the documents mentioned at the time of the challan. He stated that he can show those documents in Court.

10. In defence evidence, the accused examined 3 witnesses - Accused Anil Kumar examined himself as DW­1, Subhash Mohan Lal as DW­2 and Accused Vijay Singh examined himself as DW­3.

11. DW­1 in his examination in chief restated what he had said in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. He stated that he had filed an RTI application asking the question whether a constable had any power to impound a vehicle. Reply to which is exhibit DW1/A wherein it is stated that a constable is not allowed to stop a commercial vehicle. He further stated that he filed a complaint in regard the wrongful preparation of his challan both to the commissioner and ACP, Ex. DW1/B and DW1/D respectively.

In his cross examination, the accused stated that he can produce accused namely Safique Khan who can prove that he was wearing proper State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

uniform on the day of the challan. He stated that he made a complaint to the Joint commissioner however no action against that. He also denied the suggestion that he could not produce documents of the vehicle challaned. He denied the suggestion that he had overtaken a vehicle bearing registration number HR 55D 3558.

12. DW 2 stated in his examination in chief that on the day of the challan, he was passing over Raja Garden flyover in his vehicle bearing no. UP 16 9296, when he saw the vehicle of the accused. He stated that he stopped his vehicle on seeing the accused. The distance between the two must have been 50­100 metres. He stated that he asked the accused as to why his vehicle had been stopped. He further stated that there was ZO present on the spot. There were however 4 constables present on the spot. He stated that the accused was in proper uniform and that the vehicle of the accused had been impounded.

In his cross examination, he stated this had happened at around 1:00pm on 18.04.2014. He stated that he knows the accused as their vehices are engaged in the same school. He denied the suggestion that he is trying to save the accused as he is knows him. He denied the suggestion that the ZO was present at the spot. He stated that there were no public witnesses present when the challan was prepared against the accused. State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

13. DW­3 stated in his examination in chief that all the documents of the vehicle challaned were present in the vehicle on the day of the challan. Permit is Ex. DW3/A which is valid upto 14.07.2014. Fitness certificate is stated to be valid upto 24.01.2015 and that fitness had been kept in the ACP office at that time, which is mark B. Certificate of insurnace of the period 10.07.2013 to 09.07.2014 is Ex. DW3/B. Certificate of fitness from the date of 22.01.2015 to 21.01.2016 is Ex. DW3/C. PUC Certificate valid from the date of 14.04.2014 to 16.07.2014 is Ex. DW3/D. CNG leakage test certificate from 17.04.2014 to 16.07.2014 is Ex. DW3/E. RC of the vehice is already on record.

In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the accused didnot have the documents when the challan was made. He further denied the suggestion that he had gotten the documents made in back date.

14. I have heard the both the parties and also perused the record.

15. The burden of proving a criminal case lies on the prosecution who is to prove its version beyond all reasonable doubt.

16. Firstly, in the evidence all the prosecution witnesses state that the accused was driving in the wrong lane and that the truck which it overtook was in the third lane. However suprisingly the challan makes no mention of this. State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

This becomes more circumspect when no public witnesses are also joined in the investigation by the prosecution. In light of this evidence, the charge of overtaking is not proved against the accused.

17. Secondly, there is no explanation forwarded by the prosecution witnesses as to why no one was joined as witness in the investigation. Though it is settled position of law as laid down in the case of Sanspal Singh v. State of Delhi, 1999 Cr. L.J. 19 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that non­joining of public witnesses would not be fatal to the prosecution in the situation where there were no public witnesses available or none was willing to associate in the investigation but would be fatal only when despite the availability of the public witnesses no one was joined in the investigation. However in the instant matter a lack of corroboration from an independent witness, begs this Court to view the testimony of the prosecution with doubt. There can thus also be no certainty as to whether the accused was in proper uniform or not.

18. Thirdly, accused has proved on record that he had valid fitness, pollution, insurance, RC at the time of the challan. Same has not been rebuted by the prosecution. In light of the valid documents that the accused is able to show, the story of the prosecution appears less probable. The fact of independent corroboration is also casting a doubt on their version. State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.

19. All these infirmities cast a shadow of doubt on the version of the prosecution and thereby calls in question the veracity of the prosecution story. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and convincing evidence.

20. Therefore, I find that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore accused Anil Kumar is acquitted for all offences under Section 3/181, 146/196, 56/192, 39/192, 7/177, 99(1)/177, 66(1)/192A. Accused Vijay Singh is acquitted for all offences under Sections 5/180, 56/192, RRR 32/177, 39/192, 66(1)/192A and DMVR 99(1)/77 M. V. Act respectively.

PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT DATED: 29.01.2015 (Sadhika Jalan) MM­01/Traffic (North) Rohini/ New Delhi 29.01.2015 State Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr.