Delhi District Court
Cr. Case/301974/2016 on 1 February, 2022
1 of 22
IN THE COURT OF ANURAG THAKUR
MM-02: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
FIR No. 550/2006
PS: Timarpur
U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC
State v. Sanjay
CNR No. DLCT02-001311-2008
Date of institution of case: 22.12.2008
Date when judgment reserved: 22.01.2022
Date when judgment pronounced: 01.02.2022
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case : 301974/2016
Date of commission of offence : 20.11.2006
Name of complainant : Smt. Sunita Chaudhary
W/o Pritam Chaudhary
R/o Y-3562, Gali No. 95,
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi.
Name and address of accused : Sanjay s/o Jai Lal
R/o Village Chabilpur
PO, PS & Tehsil Ginnor
Distt. Sambhal, U.P.
Offence complained of : U/s 279/337/338/304A IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of order : 01.02.2022
Final order : Convicted
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE
1. Succinctly, case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.2006 at about 9:00 p.m at Outer Ring Road, in between Gopalpur and Wazirabad Village, within the jurisdiction of PS Timarpur, accused was found driving one delivery van (D- Van) bearing registration no. DL-1LF-9827 on a public way in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and thereby he committed an offence punishable u/s 279 of The Indian Penal Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:12:49 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 2 of 22 Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC) and secondly on that date, time and place while so driving the aforesaid vehicle in the above stated manner, he hit against one motorcycle having registration number DL-7SV-8741 and scooter having registration no. DL-8SR-4947 thereby causing simple injuries to pillion rider of motorcycle Sunita Chaudhary, grievous injuries to driver of motorcycle namely Pritam Chaudhary and death (not amounting to culpable homicide) of scooterist Udham Singh and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 337, 338 & 304A IPC.
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, final report was filed against the accused. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused was summoned to face trial. Upon appearance, copy of charge sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, notice u/s 279/337/338/304A IPC was served upon accused on 06.06.2012 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate the allegations against the accused. In support of its version, prosecution examined fourteen witnesses:-
PW-1 Sunita Chaudhary testified that she lived at Y-3562, Gali No. 95, Sant Nagar, Burari and was employed as Senior Sales Girl. On 20.11.2006 she was alongwith her husband Mr Pritam Chaudhary and they were coming from Greater Kailash and were going towards Burari and they were on their motorcycle which was being driven by her husband and she was sitting behind. The number of the motorcycle was DL-8741. At about 09:00 pm when they reached near Gopalpur chowk, outer ring road, they were at still position at the red light and as they had to turn towards Sant Nagar from that red light. Meanwhile one more person on scooter also came at the red light and he was Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:13:12 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 3 of 22 also standing there and was supposed to turn towards Sant Nagar whose name was later found to be Udham Singh. As their light turned green, they alongwith the scooterist started to turn their vehicles to Sant Nagar side i.e. the right side.
The offending vehicle i.e. delivery van/Vikram came from the G.T. Karanl road side and hit their motorcycle as well as scooter on the left side as he jumped the red light. As a result of the collision she alongwith her husband fell down on the road and received injuries. She received injuries on her left hand and other part of the body. Her husband received injuries on his leg and the scooterist also received injuries. She was able to see the driver of the offending delivery van/Vikram. The accused present in the court on that day was correctly identified by the witness. Accused after hitting them tried to flee away from the spot but was caught by some police person/public persons who were also there. Public person gathered at the spot and some one from the public persons called the police. The number of the offending vehicle/Vikaram was DL... 9827. After some time police officials came at the spot and they were shifted to the trauma centre on the government vehicle. There they were admitted at the hospital and received appropriate medical treatment. However, she did not remember the number of the scooter which was driven by Udham Singh. Police recorded her statement which was Ex.PW1/A bearing her signature at point A. At that stage, Ld. APP for the State sought permission to ask one leading question with respect to complete number of the offending vehicle which was allowed. She admitted the suggestion that the complete number of the offending vehicle was DL-1LF-9827. At that stage, the witness was shown photographs of the offending delivery van /Vikram bearing No. DL- 1LF-9827. The witness correctly identified the same. The photographs of the offending delivery van /Vikram were collectively Ex P-1. The witness was also shown the photographs of scooter and their motorcycle. The witness also correctly identified the same. The photographs were collectively Ex P-2. At Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2022.02.01 17:13:36 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur
4 of 22 that stage, Ld. APP for the State further sought permission to cross examine the witness u/s 154 of Indian Evidence Act which was allowed. The statement of witness given to police was read over and explained to her and she was confronted with the statement Mark 1A. She admitted that IO prepared the site plan at her instance. IO recorded her statement.
During cross-examination by the Ld. Defence Counsel she revealed that there was no red light on their side where she was standing but there was red light on the side of the offending vehicle from where it was coming. Only vehicles namely bike and scooter were standing at the spot where she was standing. Before the accident no one else was standing at the spot where she was standing. There was no police person at the spot but they were present near near the spot. After the accident 10/15 public persons came at the spot. She came to know the name of injured Udham Singh later on in the hospital. She was lifted from the spot by public persons. She lost consciousness for about 10-15 minutes after the accident but regained her senses thereafter. Again said there was darkness around her eyes and she was not in full senses for about 15 min. The police officials met her after about 25 min after regaining the consciousness. She could not tell about the time when she reached at the hospital. The distance between the spot of accident and trauma centre was about 25 min. The road where she was supposed to go was meant for rickshawala and on her side only two persons were standing. There were about two rickshaws after crossing the road. Her statement was recorded by police officials in writing. The police officials first of all shifted them to the hospital and thereafter recorded her statement. She admitted that her statement was not recorded at the spot. Statement of Udham Singh was also recorded in her presence. The statement of her husband was also recorded. She did not remember as to how many papers she had signed. Her statement was recorded on the day of accident, thereafter police official met her but she did not Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:13:50 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 5 of 22 remember whether her statement was recorded by the police thereafter. She denied the suggestion that she did not stop for the traffic and straight away crossed the road due to which the accident occurred. She denied the suggestion that the aforesaid accident happened due to negligence of her husband. She remained at the hospital for two to three days but her husband remained admitted at the hospital for about 15 days. She remained at the hospital to take care of her husband after she was discharged, meanwhile she was also taking care of household chores. She did not remember the exact date when her husband was discharged from the hospital. She saw the offending vehicle at the time of accident only. She admitted that the photographs of the Vikram/delivery van were not clicked in her presence and that in her presence no photographer was called at the spot. She noted down the number of the offending vehicle i.e. DL-1LF-9827 on the day of accident while the accused was trying to flee away from the spot and apprehended by the public persons and brought back at the spot. The accused was apprehended by perhaps one police person who had finished his duty and was wearing a khakhi jacket. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely or that the site plan was not prepared at her instance.
4. PW-2 Sh. Pritam Chaudhary testified that on 20.11.2006 he alongwith his wife Sunita Chaudhary were coming from Greater Kailash and going towards Sant Nagar on his motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-7SV-8741 and at about 8.30/9.00 pm when they reached near Gopalpur Chowk and there were blinking red lights on aforesaid chowk. He gave signal for turning towards right side direction and he was crossing the road for going towards the right side. Immediately, one delivery van whose registration no. he did not remember on that day came from the side of Burari and struck against his aforesaid motorcycle and after the impact he alongwith his wife fell on the Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2022.02.01 17:14:04 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 6 of 22 ground. Accused driver of the aforesaid delivery van tried to flee away from the spot and at that time the aforesaid accused driver also struck against another scooter rider. He did not remember registration number of that scooter.
Some public person might have called the police and two Police Gipsies reached at the spot. Police official had shifted him and his wife to the trauma center. Public persons apprehended the accused driver at the spot. Police official inquired from him in the trauma center and recorded his statement in that regard. Accused driver present in the court on that day was correctly identified by the witness. He was the registered owner of his aforesaid motorcycle and he had made special power of attorney in the favour of his brother Tej Ram for obtaining the aforesaid motorcycle on superdari. The photocopy of aforesaid SPA was marked as Mark X-1 running into two pages which bear his signature at point 'A'. On that day he had brought five photographs of his aforesaid motorcycle alongwith CD and those photographs alongwith CD were Ex-P1 (colly). He did not want to say anything else. At that stage, Ld. APP for state wanted to cross-examine the witness u/s 154 of IEA as he was not revealing the complete facts of the case. Ld. APP was granted permission to cross-examine the witness. During cross-examination by Ld. APP he denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police about the registration number of aforesaid scooter as DL-8SR-4947. The witness was confronted with statement Mark X-2 from point A to A1 where it was so recorded. He denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police about the registration number of aforesaid offending delivery van as DL-1LF-9827 The witness was confronted with statement Mark X-2 from point B to B1 where it was so recorded. He admitted that he had stated to the IO that driver of aforesaid delivery van was driving the van at very high speed and in a rash manner and struck against his motorcycle and also against the aforesaid scooter rider. He could not identify the aforesaid delivery van and scooter at that stage.
Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:14:25 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 7 of 22
During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel he denied the suggestion that accused was not driving the vehicle in rash or negligent manner and due to the same reason he had not disclosed the speed of the vehicle. He did not know whether his vehicle was mechanically inspected. He denied the suggestion that he was driving vehicle in rash manner and accident was caused due to his fault.
5. PW-3 HC Rakesh testified that on 20.11.2006 he was posted as HC at PS Timar Pur. On that day he was working as duty officer from 04 pm to 12 midnight. On that day, at about 10.40 pm, Ct. Narender had handed over to him a rukka which was sent by IO SI Ghanshyam and on the basis of that rukka, he registered FIR of the case and carbon copy of FIR was exhibited as Ex.PW3/A (OSR) which bear his signature at point A. He also made endorsement on rukka which was exhibited as Ex.PW3/B which bear his signature at point A. After registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to Ct. Narender for further handing over to the IO for necessary action.
6. PW-4 Sh. Davinder Kumar testified that he was qualified grade-1 mechanic and he had joined specialized courses/training from ITI and various vehicle manufacturing companies and he had experience of about 30 years in vehicle inspection. On 21.11.06 he was posted as ASI Tech. at MT Workshop, Delhi. On that day, on the request of IO/SI Ghanshyam, he mechanically inspected one D-Van Mahindra Champion bearing no. DL-1LF-9827, one LML scooter no. DL-8SR-4947 and one motorcycle LML freedom no. DL-7SV-8741 and prepared his detailed reports exhibited as Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B & Ex.PW4/C which bear his signatures at point A respectively.
Digitally signed by ANURAGANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2022.02.01 17:14:48 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 8 of 22
7. PW-5 Dr. Karan Singh testified that on 20.11.2006 he was posted as CMO at Sushruta Trauma Centre. On that day he medico-legally examined patients namely Sunita Chaudhary, Pritam and one unknown person as produced with the history of RTA. His detailed MLC reports were exhibited as Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B & Ex.PW5/C all bearing his signature at point A.
8. PW-6 Dr. T. Chucha testified that on 08.01.2008 he was posted as CMO at Sushruta Trauma Centre. On that day, he medico-legally examined one patient namely Udham Singh. His detailed MLC report was exhibited as Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point A.
9. PW-7 Rajesh Kumar deposed that he had been working as a record clerk at Sushruta Trauma Centre since April, 2000. Dr. Arvind Pratap and Dr. Vikas Singh had already left the services of the hospital and their whereabouts were not known. He had worked with the aforesaid doctors and he had seen them while signing and writing the documents. He could identify the signatures and handwritings of aforesaid doctors. He produced the MLC register of the MLCs no. 82026, 82028 and 82029 all dated 20.11.2006. The opinion on nature of injury on MLC no. 82026 was given by Dr. Arvind Pratap, Sr. Neuro Surgery and exhibited as Ex.PW7/A which bear the signature of Dr. Arvind Pratap at point A. The opinions on nature of injuries on MLC no. 82028, 82029 were given by Dr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Ortho and the same were exhibited as Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C which bear the signatures of Dr. Vikas Singh at point A respectively.
10.PW-8 ASI Ravinder Kumar deposed that on 20.11.2006 he was posted as Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:15:06 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 9 of 22 constable at PS Timar Pur. On that day, one PCR call information was received by SI Ghanshyam and he along with Ct. Rambir accompanied him to the spot i.e. Gopalpur mod, outer ring road. They found one motorcycle whose registration number he did not remember, one scooter and one D-van whose registration numbers he did not remember. IO left Ct. Rambir at the spot and he along with IO went to the trauma center as he came to know that injured persons were already been shifted to the trauma center where they found three injured persons namely Pritam and his wife and one other person namely Udham Singh. IO collected the MLC's of the injured persons and found Udham Singh along with Pritam not fit for giving statements as opined by concerned doctor. After interrogation, IO recorded the statement of Sunita w/o Pritam. Thereafter, IO prepared rukka and same was handed over to him for registration of FIR. He left for PS Timarpur and came back at the trauma center along with copy of FIR and original rukka and same was handed over to the IO. Thereafter, he along with IO came back at the spot and they met with one person namely Sanjay who revealed that he was the driver who committed this accident. Accused Sanjay was present in the court on that day and was correctly identified by the witness. IO interrogated the accused. IO seized all the vehicles involved in the accident and prepared memo Ex.PW8/A bearing his signature at point A. IO had given notice u/s 133 MV Act to the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. D-van on 21.11.2006 and thereafter, IO arrested the accused Sanjay and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW8/B and Ex.PW8/C both bearing his signature at point A respectively. IO collected the documents of offending vehicle from accused and also collected the DL of accused and seized the same vide memos Ex.PW8/D and Ex.PW8/E both bearing his signature at point A respectively. At that stage, Ld. APP for State sought permission to ask leading question from the witness which was allowed. He admitted the suggestion that the number of D-van was DL-1LF-9827, Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:15:23 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 10 of 22 scooter was DL-8SR-4947 and motorcycle was bearing no. DL-7SB- 8741. He could identify the case properties if shown to him. At that stage, total eight photographs i.e. three photographs of D-van bearing no. DL-1LF-9827, two photographs of scooter bearing no. DL-8SR-4947 and three photographs of motorcycle bearing no. DL-7SB-8741 in question were shown to the witness who correctly identified the same. The photographs of D-van were already exhibited as Ex.P1(Colly) in the testimony of PW1. Photographs of scooter and motorcycle were already Ex.P2(Colly) in testimony of PW1.
11.PW-9 Bhopal Singh testified that in the month of November 2006, his brother namely Udham Singh sustained injuries in one road accident as he received call from trauma center. He went to the trauma center and after long treatment his brother Udham Singh had expired in 2008. Thereafter, he identified his dead body in mortuary and collected the dead body. His statement was recorded in that regard vide dead body handing over memo Ex.PW9/A bearing his signature at point A.
12.PW-10 Sh. Bhagat Singh deposed that in the month of January 2008, his brother namely Udham Singh had expired as he received call and his brother was already under treatment in a road accident. He went to the mortuary along with his brother Bhopal Singh. Thereafter, he identified dead body of his brother in mortuary and collected the dead body. His statement was recorded in that regard vide dead body handing over memo which was already exhibited as Ex.PW9/A bearing his signature at point B. His brother sustained injuries in the year 2006 in a road accident and after long treatment, concerned doctor declared him dead.
Digitally signed by ANURAGANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2022.02.01 17:16:03 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 11 of 22
13.PW-11 Tej Ram testified that he resided at Khasra No. 77/13, Satya Vihar, Burari, Delhi and his brother namely Pritam was injured in the incident. He got the motorcycle bearing no. DL-7SV-8741 which was registered in his name on superdari as he gave the Special Power of Attorney regarding the said bike. The photocopy of Special Power of Attorney was given by him at the time of order of superdari which was already on record and same was Ex.PW11/A bearing his signature at point A. The copy of superdarinama was also on record which was exhibited as Ex.PW11/B bearing his signature at point A. The said motorcycle was not in condition to run and he gave its photographs alongwith CD which were already exhibited as Ex.P1 (colly) in the testimony of PW-2.
14.PW-12 SI Mahender Singh testified that on 08.01.2008 he was posted at PS Timarpur as ASI. On that day this case file was handed over to him. On that day he had received information from Trauma Center that injured Udham Singh had expired. Thereafter, he alongwith one constable reached at Trauma Center and obtained the MLC of deceased i.e. MLC No. 94829 which was already exhibited as Ex.PW6/A on which the concerned doctor had opined the patient was brought dead. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to Subji Mandi mortuary for preservation. On next day postmortem of body was conducted and dead body was handed over to the relative vide Ex.PW12/A bearing his signature at point A. He also recorded the statement of relatives of deceased namely Bhagat Singh and Bhopal Singh Ex.PW12/B and Ex.PW12/C respectively both bearing his name at point A. Handing over memo of the dead body was already exhibited as Ex.PW9/A bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter, he obtained PM report no. 34/08 alongwith death certificate of deceased Udham Singh. Thereafter, he prepared charge sheet after adding section 304A IPC and submitted the same in the court.
Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:16:16 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 12 of 22
During cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, he revealed that he received the present case file from MHC(R). HC Sunil who was the IO in the present case before him. Daily diary writer had already mentioned the information regarding his departure. He had not recorded the statement of witnesses in the hospital, therefore, he did not see ID card of the witnesses. He denied the suggestion that he did not record statement of any of the person in present case or that no constable accompanied him while he visited the hospital, therefore, he did not know the name of that constable. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge about the present case except what he had stated in his examination in chief. He denied the suggestion that he recorded all the statements while sitting in the PS or that he was deposing falsely.
15.PW-13 Dr. Akash Jhanjee testified that he had been deputed by Medical Superintendent, AAA Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Rohit, who prepared post-mortem report No. 34/08 dated 09.01.2008 of patient Udhan Singh s/o Harkaran Singh brought by ASI Mahender Singh. Dr. Rohit had left the services of the hospital and his whereabouts were not available in the hospital record. He could identify his signatures on aforesaid post-mortem report as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of service. As per record, post-mortem no. 34/08 regarding dead body of aforesaid patient was prepared by Dr. Rohit (SR) at Sabji Mandi Mortuary after conducting the post-mortem. The post-mortem report was Ex.PW13/A bearing signature of Dr. Rohit at point A. As per report, the cause of death of the aforesaid patient was due to combined effect of cerebral damage and septicemia consequent upon prolonged immobilization on body due to blunt force/surface impact to the head. All injuries were ante-mortem.
During cross-examination by the ld. counsel for accused he stated that the Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:17:14 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 13 of 22 post-mortem report was not prepared in his presence. He was not a handwriting expert nor he had any certificate regarding the same.
16.PW-14 Inspector Ghanshyam deposed that on 20.11.2006 he was posted at PS Timarpur as SI. He was on emergency duty from 08 p.m to 08 a.m. He received DD No. 16A dated 20.11.2006 regarding road traffic accident. The DD No. 16A was Ex. PW.14/A. Thereafter, in pursuance of the DD, he alongwith Ct. Rambir and Ct. Ravinder went to outer ring road, Gopalpur intersection. There a three wheeler, one motorcycle and one LML scooter in accidental condition were parked on the left side (Burari side) of the road. The photographs of all the three vehicles available on case file were seen by him and they were the photographs of the aforementioned three vehicles which were involved in the accident. The photographs of tempo were already exhibited as Ex. P.1 (colly, 3 in number.). The photographs of motorcycle and LML Scooter were already exhibited as Ex.P.2 (colly, 5 in number.). The injured persons had already been shifted to trauma centre by PCR van. He met no public person at the spot and after deputing Ct. Rambir at the spot, he went alongwith Ct. Ravinder to trauma centre. He collected MLCs of injured Udham Singh, Sunita Chaudhary and Pritam Chaudhary which were already exhibited as Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C respectively. Injured Sunita was fit for making a statement. Thereafter, he recorded statement of injured Sunita at trauma centre in his handwriting and the same was already Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point B. He prepared rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Ravinder for registration of FIR at PS Timarpur. The original rukka in his handwriting was Ex.PW14/B bearing his signature at point B. After about one or one and a half hours after leaving the truama centre, Ct. Ravinder came back alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him.
Digitally signed by ANURAGANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2022.02.01 17:17:30 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 14 of 22 Thereafter, he and Ct. Ravinder came back to the spot. He seized the three vehicles i.e. one tempo, one motorcycle and one LML scooter and prepared a common seizure memo already Ex.PW8/A bearing his signature at point B. After some time, Sunita Chaudhary also reached the spot and at her instance he prepared the site plan Ex.PW14/C bearing his signature at point A. He got the vehicles shifted to PS Timarpur and deposited the same in the mallkhana. On the next day in the morning i.e. 21.11.2006 he again went to trauma centre where Sunita Chaudhary and her husband met them. He recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of both Sunita Chaudhary and her husband. Thereafter, he gave a notice u/s 133 MV Act to Shailender Kumar i.e. owner of tempo, the original notice was Ex.PW.14/D bearing his signature at point A. The reply to the notice was given in writing by Shailender Kumar on the notice itself from point X to X.1. Accused Sanjay present in court on that day was correctly identified by the witness. Accused came with the owner Shailender Kumar. Thereafter, he interrogated Sanjay and arrested him, the corresponding arrest memo was already Ex.PW.8/B bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he seized the documents of tempo and prepared the corresponding seizure memo already exhibited as Ex.PW8/D bearing his signature at point B. He seized the DL presented by accused Sanjay and prepared the corresponding seizure memo already Ex.PW8/E bearing his signature at point B. Prior to the arrest of the accused Sanjay, he also conducted his personal search and prepared personal search memo already Ex.PW8/C bearing his signature at point B. On his request, the mechanical inspection of all the three vehicles was conducted by the mechanical expert ASI Devender. The mechanical inspection reports of the tempo, the seized scooter and motorcycle prepared by ASI Devender were already exhibited as Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C respectively.
Thereafter, the accused Sanjay was released by him on bail as the offence was found to be bailable and he furnished bail bonds Ex.PW14/E bearing his Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2022.02.01 17:17:53 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 15 of 22 signature at point A and at point B. Thereafter, he submitted the MLCs of all the three injured and obtained the result. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on 01.05.2007, he handed over the case file to MHC(R) at the direction of SHO PS Timarpur as he was transferred from the PS. During cross-examination by the ld. defence counsel he stated that he did not remember the exact time of sending the rukka to PS but it must had been about 9.30-10:00 p.m. He did not remember the exact time when the rukka was received back by him at spot but it was after about half an hour of registration of FIR. He left the PS for investigation of that case at about 9:20 p.m. Initially, he remained at the spot for about 20 to 25 minutes before leaving for hospital.
The accident spot was about 1.5 to 2 km from the PS. He did not record statement of anyone at the spot. He did not make any inquiry from anyone at the spot about the accident. From the PCR call, he came to know that a vehicle was involved in the accident. He had not prepared the charge-sheet so he could not say about the brief summary of facts prepared by the IO while submitting the charge-sheet. He did not know why that IO mentioned that he had inquired from the passersby about the accident. The passersby told him that the injured had been shifted to trauma centre. He did not record the statement of those passersby who informed him about the shifting of the injured to hospital. He also did not record the names of those passersby in the case diary. He reached the trauma centre at about 10 p.m. He recorded the statement of Sunita at trauma centre. He did not pay attention to the presence of other persons at the time of recording the statement of Sunita. He could not say whether the husband of Sunita was present at the time of recording of her statement or not. He could not say whether Udham Singh was present at the time of recording of statement of Sunita or not. The doctor had opined that Sunita was fit for making statement so he recorded her statement. He had not taken any Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:18:08 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 16 of 22 permission in writing from the doctor for taking statement of Sunita. He admitted the suggestion that on the date of incident Sunita came at the accident site and met him. He did not remember whether Sunita came on her own to the spot or whether he accompanied her to the spot from the hospital. He did not take signature of any one on the site plan. The site plan was prepared at the spot at instance of Sunita. He arrested the accused on 21.11.2006. The vehicle was brought to the PS from the spot by one constable whose name he did not recall on that day. He had recorded the statement of that constable. The specific statement qua shifting of vehicle from the spot to the PS by constable was not on record. He denied the suggestion that the constable did not take the vehicle from the site of accident to PS. The offending tempo was seized at the spot. He denied the suggestion that Sunita did not meet him at the spot on that day and that the site plan was not prepared at the instance of Sunita. He denied the suggestion that all the documents purportedly prepared at the site or at hospital were actually prepared while sitting in the PS. When he reached the hospital, only Sunita was declared fit by the doctor for making the statement, the other injured were receiving treatment. When he initially reached the spot, Sanjay was not present there. He denied the suggestion that Sanjay was present at the spot and he only drove the vehicle from the spot to the PS. He denied the suggestion that Sanjay was arrested at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the accused was not driving the tempo in a rash or negligent manner. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
17.Prosecution evidence was closed on 25.11.2021. Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C read with section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 06.12.2021. During his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused claimed that he was innocent. He stated that the accident was not caused from his vehicle and when he reached the spot of accident, he saw that one TATA 407 hit the motorcycle and the Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:18:31 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 17 of 22 scooter and it sped away from the spot. He adumbrated that his delivery van was falsely implicated in the matter. The accused did not examine any witness in his defence. Final arguments were heard on 22.01.2022.
18.Learned APP for state submitted that all cogent oral and documentary evidence has been tendered and all the witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. He claimed that the case against the accused has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt, so the accused be convicted.
19.Per-contra, ld. defence counsel submitted that no public person was asked to join the investigation. He stated that the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the motorcyclist. He argued that the site plan lacked even basic details and the same was useless. He alleged that the accused had been falsely implicated and the investigation conducted in the matter is shoddy. He prayed that the accused be acquitted as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against him.
20. I have cogitated over the submissions made by Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused. Before adverting to appreciation of evidence for deciding the present case the applicable penal provisions are reproduced in verbatim as follows:-
Section 279. Rash driving or riding on a public way- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others-Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.Digitally signed
ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:18:45 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 18 of 22
338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others-Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Section 304A. Causing death by negligence- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
Explaining the meaning of rash act as distinguished from negligent act, the Apex Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 7 SCC 72 observed as under:-
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 precaution.
To fasten criminal liability upon the accused in the present matter, it is imperative that the injuries and death should have been direct result of a rash or negligent act of accused and that act must be proximate cause without intervention of another's negligence. The act must be causa causans and it is not enough that the act may have been causa sine qua non.
21.In a nutshell, the prosecution has to prove that accused Sanjay was driving the D-Van on a public way in a rash or negligent manner and he hit one motorcycle as well as one scooter causing simple injuries to Sunita Chaudhary, grievous injuries to Pritam Chaudhary and death of scooterist Udham Singh. My observations on the evidence adduced during trial are delineated hereinafter.Digitally signed by ANURAG
ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2022.02.01 17:19:05 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 19 of 22
22.First and foremost, the identity of the accused Sanjay as the driver of the D-
Van (involved in the accident) is well established. Both the injured namely Sunita Chaudhary and Pritam Chaudhary during trial correctly identified the accused as the person driving the D-Van at the time of the accident. In reply to the notice u/s 133 of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Shailender Kumar (the owner of the D-Van DL-1LF-9827) had submitted that on the date of the accident his vehicle was being driven by the accused Sanjay. Moreover, in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C, the accused stated that he was driving the D-Van at the time of the accident. He also stated that he saw the accident occur. Thus, the accused admitted that he was driving the D-Van at the time and place of occurrence.
23.Regarding the manner of occurrence of accident, both the injured had stated that while they on their motorcycle (DL-7SV-8741) were turning right to go towards Sant Nagar then a D-Van coming from side of Burari on G.T. Karnal road hit their motorcycle as well as one scooter on the left side. Due to impact of the collision, both the injured and the scooterist Udham Singh fell on the road. This narration of the manner of happening of accident is congruous with the mechanical inspection reports of the three vehicles involved in the accident as fresh damage was found on the front of D-Van whereas dents and damage were found on the left side of both the two-wheelers. Moreover, both the two wheelers had scratch marks on right side. The conclusion that can be drawn from perusal of the mechanical inspection reports of the vehicles is that the D- Van from its front side hit the left side of motorcycle and the scooter due to which both the two wheelers hit the ground on their right side and hence scratches were present on the right side of both the two-wheelers.
24.Both the injured also testified that traffic lights were installed at the Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2022.02.01 17:19:19 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 20 of 22 intersection where the accident occurred. Sunita Chaudhary deposed that after jumping the red light the D-Van hit their motorcycle and one scooter. Pritam Chaudhary also testified that the D-Van was being driven at high speed when the same struck against his motorcycle and the scooter. He had also testified that he gave signal for taking right turn. During recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused stated that at Gopalpur intersection he was driving the van at speed of 20 kmph. Had the D-Van been driven at the speed told by accused then the impact would not have resulted in death of one person and causing of serious injuries to another person. The fact that the D-Van did not stop at the red light and also disregarded the signal given by Pritam Chaudhary shows the negligence on part of the accused.
25.Moreover, it was the D-Van which from its front hit the sides of both the two wheelers meaning thereby that the two wheelers had covered some distance after turning right and then the D-Van hit them. If the D-Van was driven at a slow speed at the intersection then upon application of brakes, the collision would have been averted or at any rate, a minor collision leading to minimal damage would have been the result. In Ravi Kapur v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 9 SCC 284 the apex court held that doctrine of 'reasonable care' imposes an obligation or duty upon driver on a public way to see that his driving does not endanger the life of right users of the road. Accused Sanjay failed to take reasonable care while driving the D-Van. The evidence adduced by prosecution leads to the irresistible conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of driver of D-Van.
26.The MLCs of injured Sunita Chaudhary and Pritam Chaudhary have been duly proved. The post-mortem report of the deceased Udham Singh has also been tendered in evidence. The doctor concluded that Sunita sustained Simple Digitally signed ANURAG by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:19:36 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 21 of 22 injuries in the accident. The nature of injuries sustained by Pritam Chaudhary were opined as Grievous. The post-mortem report of Udham Singh revealed that death was caused due to combined effect of cerebral damage and septicemia consequent upon prolonged immobilization of the body due to blunt force/surface impact to the head. All injuries were ante-mortem. The identity of the deceased is also duly proved by his brothers Bhopal Singh and Bhagat Singh who deposed during trial that their brother was undergoing treatment for injuries sustained in road accident and after lengthy treatment he died. There is no reason not to accept the opinions expressed by doctors on the medical documents of injured and the deceased.
27.The identity of the vehicles involved in the accident is duly established. All the three vehicles were found parked on the side of road when IO reached at the spot. All the three vehicles were seized at the spot of accident itself. All the three vehicles have been duly identified by injured Sunita Chaudhary by looking at their photographs. IO also identified the vehicles during his testimony. It is apparent that the three vehicles that collided were D-Van bearing registration no. DL-1LF-9827, motorcycle sporting registration no. DL-7SV-8741 and scooter having registration no. DL-8SR-4947. During recording of his statement, the accused took the defence that one TATA-407 had hit the motorcycle and scooter but he had been falsely implicated. This statement of one TATA-407 causing the accident is last ditch attempt by accused to thwart the case of prosecution but this statement does not explain the presence of fresh damage on front of D-Van and the broken wind screen of D-Van. The statement of accused also does not fit in with suggestions given by defence counsel to injured where he attributed the occurrence of accident to rash or negligent driving by the motorcyclist Pritam Singh. Another leg of argument advanced by the ld. defence counsel is that there was no red light at Digitally signed by ANURAG ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date:
2022.02.01 17:19:53 +0530 FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur 22 of 22 the intersection, so the accused was not rash or negligent in driving his D-Van.
He pointed out that the site plan did not show the red light at the spot of accident. Though, both the injured stated that there was red light at the intersection where the accident was caused but assuming arguendo that there was no red light at the intersection then the D-Van driver ought to have driven his vehicle with utmost care and circumspection to prevent collision with the traffic that was attempting to cross the road. At that place, the speed of vehicle of accused should not have been 20 kmph. This again shows that the D-Van was driven negligently.
28.To conclude, both the injured have largely supported the case of the prosecution and crucially their testimonies have not impaired the case in any manner. The testimonies of all the witnesses are natural, trustworthy and they do not seem to be contrived. The injuries sustained by the injured have been duly proved by adducing the best available evidence. It is also substantiated that the death of Udham Singh was caused due to injuries sustained in the road accident. The element of rash or negligent driving on part of D-Van driver Sanjay has also been brought forth beyond a shadow of doubt. Consequently, the accused Sanjay is convicted for the offence u/s 279/337/338/304A IPC Announced in the open court on 01st February, 2022 ANURAG Digitally signed by ANURAG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2022.02.01 17:20:23 +0530 (ANURAG THAKUR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-02 TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI This judgment consists of 22 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
FIR no. 550/2006 State v. Sanjay PS Timarpur