Delhi District Court
State vs . Moti Nagar 1/7 on 5 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Mohd. Khushbuddin Ansari
FIR No. 338/2013
PS Moti Nagar
U/s 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 75/2/15
Unique case ID No. : 02401R0104542015
Date of Institution : 24.02.2015
Date of Commission of Offence : 17.09.2013
Name of the complainant : ASI Surat Singh
Name & address of the accused : Mohd. Khushbuddin Ansari
S/o Sh. Ilias Ansari
R/o A-61, Deepak Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 05.01.2016
Date of announcing of judgment : 05.01.2016
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section FIR No. 338/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 1/7 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 17.09.2013 at about 06:30 PM near Metro Pillar No.321, Main Nazafgarh Road, Delhi, the accused Mohd. Khushbuddin Ansari was driving Activa (Scooty) bearing registration no.DL-10SG-1051 in rash and negligent manner. While driving the said vehicle in such a manner, he hit the same against one pedestrian namely Mohd. Shakir and caused his death. During investigation, it was revealed that after causing accident the accused did not take all reasonable step to secure medication attention for the victim. FIR
3. On the basis of the said allegations and on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 338/2013 under section 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act was lodged at Police Station Moti Nagar.
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 as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act was framed against accused Mohd. Khushbuddin Ansari to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove the above said allegations, prosecution has cited 9 witnesses of which PW Munna @ Rohit is the only eye witness of the accident. Remaining are formal or police witnesses and none of them is the witness of accident. Thus the relevant witness to prove the fact that accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and he was driving in rash and negligent manner is PW FIR No. 338/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 2/7 Munna @ Rohit.
7. Prosecution has examined only one witness i.e Sh. Munna @ Rohit.
8. PW1 Sh. Munna @ rohit could not tell date or month of accident, however, it is stated by him that in the year 2013, he was working as salesman at Najafgarh Road. It is stated that in the evening he was going towards Raja Garden on foot. When he reached near Metro Pillar No.321, Najafgarh Road, he saw that one Activa scooter came from the side of Raja Garden with a fast speed and hit against a pedestrian who was crossing the road. It is stated that said pedestrian fell down and sustained injuries and blood was oozing out. It is stated that this witness noted down the number of Activa Scooter. It is stated by him that he cannot identify the driver of the offending vehicle and he cannot tell whether the driver of the offending vehicle is present in the Court or not. This witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for State after taking permission from the Court. During cross-examination by Ld. APP, this witness failed to identify the accused as driver of the offending vehicle despite being specifically pointed by the Ld APP. He denied the suggestion that accused present in the Court was sitting in the PS on 16.10.2013 or that he identified him as driver of the Activa who caused the accident of a pedestrian.
9. PW1 Sh. Munna @ Rohit is the only eye witness of the accident in the present case, however, he failed to identify the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle despite being specifically pointed by the Ld. APP in his cross examination. Since, the only eye witness Sh. Munna @ Rohit has failed to identify the accused, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and FIR No. 338/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 3/7 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 no.DL-10SG-1051 which was being driven by the accused Mohd. Khushbuddin Ansari 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 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act. 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". Hence vide a separate order, PE was closed.
10.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 FIR No. 338/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 4/7 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.
11.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 an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
12.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 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act 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
13.The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 Indian Penal Code are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. For an offence under Section 304-A, the act of accused must be rash and negligent, which should be responsible for the death which does not amount to culpable homicide.
14. From the perusal of the file it appears that PW Munna @ Rohit is not a reliable FIR No. 338/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 5/7 witness as the alleged incident in the present case had taken place on 17.09.2013 however, the police could not find any eye witness at the spot or at the hospital, hence, rukka was prepared on the DD entry. Further, the present witness had not taken the victim to the hospital. It is also not on record that this witness had made a call to police control room (100 number). Thus, from no where this witness appears before the police on 25.09.2013 that is, 8 days after the accident. There is no explanation in the entire police file how this witness met the IO or how the IO reached this witness. Furthermore, in the present case the accused was arrested on 16.10.2013 i.e. almost a month after the accident, still no judicial TIP of the accused was conducted for the reasons best known to the IO. From all these facts, it appears that PW Munna @ Rohit might be a planted witness.
15. Further the prosecution in the present case has failed to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident as the only eye witness Sh. Munna @ Rohit failed to identify the accused in the Court, which is an essential ingredient for offence U/s 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act. 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 Mohd. Khushbuddin Ansari qua offences u/s 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act and hereby releases the accused Mohd. Khushbuddin Ansari under sections 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act, which shall have the effect of acquittal as the material witness i.e. Sh. Munna @ Rohit has been examined.
16. Accused has furnished fresh bail/surety bond in terms of Section 437-A FIR No. 338/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 6/7 Cr.P.C. The same has been accepted.
17. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 05.01.2016 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 7 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 338/2013 u/s. 279/304-A IPC & 134/187 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 7/7