Delhi District Court
Arun Singh vs The State on 22 April, 2026
DLSH010035612024 Page 1 of 25
CA No. 115/2024
Arun Singh
Vs.
State NCT of Delhi
FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017)
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS),
SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 115/2024
In the matter of :-
Arun Singh,
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash,
R/o P.O. Goserpur Chhitapatti Bazer District,
Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh.
Also at
Akash Nagar, Mangal Vihar,
Tower Vali Gali, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh.
......... Appellant
(through Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
State
NCT of Delhi
..........Respondent
(through Ld. Addl. PP for the State
CRIMINAL APPEAL
Date of institution : 28.05.2024
Date when judgment reserved : 06.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 22.04.2026
DLSH010035612024 Page 2 of 25
CA No. 115/2024
Arun Singh
Vs.
State NCT of Delhi
FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017)
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant/ convict against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.02.2024 and order on sentence dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Court of Ld. ACMM, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in case FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017), Police Station Anand Vihar, titled as State Vs. Arun Singh, whereby appellant/ convict was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and during sentence, he was sentenced for RI for 15 months for the offences U/s 279/304A IPC, further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to prosecution towards its expenses.
2. For the sake of convenience, the undersigned shall be referring to the parties as per their nomenclature before the Ld. Trial Court.
3. Brief facts as per the prosecution are that on 01.05.2016, an information was received vide DD No. 14A, as per which, at about 1:32 pm, a PCR Call was received at Control Room, East District, wherein it was informed that some person was brought dead at 63 Ram Vihar, Goswami Medical Centre. Upon the same, SI Anuj Kumar alongwith Ct. Banty reached at Goswami Medical Centre, where they found a large number of people gathered at T- Point of Ram Vihar Red Light and on the middle of the road, one DLSH010035612024 Page 3 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) white colour bus bearing no. DL 1PC 5038 was standing and on the right side, one scooter brown colour bearing no. DL 7S 7020 was lying and it was informed that the said bus was involved in accident. Further, IO was informed that both the injured were shifted to hospital, however no eye-witness could be found at the spot. Further, IO called the Crime Team at the spot and obtained photographs of the spot.
Thereafter, SI Anuj Kumar left Ct. Nitin at the spot and went to Goswami Medical Centre, where he was informed that patient namely Shri Chand was declared dead. IO was further informed that another injured was admitted to Pushpanjali Hospital, upon which, IO alongwith Ct. Banty reached over there and obtained the MLC of one Tript Manghani, as per which, the patient was brought dead at the hospital. Thereafter, IO took both the dead bodies to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital and got prepared the MLC of deceased Srichand. He further sent both the dead bodies to Sabzi Mandi mortuary for their preservation.
Thereafter, IO registered the FIR for the offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC. Further, IO seized the offending bus as well as accidental scooter and deposit the same at P.S. Anand Vihar. Thereafter, owner of the bus namely Braham Pal Singh reached at P.S. Anand Vihar alongwith driver of the bus/ accused namely Arun Singh.
After two months, one eye-witness namely Shrish Dutt Sharma also surfaced. His statement was also recorded.
DLSH010035612024 Page 4 of 25 CA No. 115/2024Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017)
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused Arun Singh. Thereafter, on completion of necessary formalities, notice was framed against accused by the Ld. Trial Court for the offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Vide judgment dated 27.02.2024 convict Arun Singh was convicted for offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC and vide order on sentence dated 30.04.2024 he was sentenced for RI for 15 months for the offences U/s 279/304A IPC, further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to prosecution towards its expenses.
5. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined 14 witnesses and after completion of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, however no defence evidence led in the matter.
6. Aggrieved by the orders of the Ld. Trial Court of his conviction vide impugned judgment dated 27.02.2024 and order on sentence dated 30.04.2024, the convict has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds: -
(i) That the impugned judgment is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned judgment was passed in a mechanical manner.
(ii) That the alleged eye-witness i.e. PW-2 Sh.
Shreesh Dutt Sharma is a planted witness that is why immediately after the incident he did not took the victim to the hospital or DLSH010035612024 Page 5 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) approached the police. He surfaced two months after the incident.
(iii) That the victim's vehicle has already breached the age limit of its use as it was registered only till 2008, while the victim was using the same 08 years after the victim's vehicle has lived its life i.e. it was 23 years old and unfit for road.
7. On these grounds, the appellant/ convict has prayed that the impugned judgment of his conviction and order on sentence may be set-aside and he may be acquitted of the offences.
8. The State/ respondent has not filed any formal reply to the appeal and the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has argued straightaway on the appeal.
9. A formal reply filed on behalf of LRs of deceased victims wherein it is contended that the Court has passed a well reasoned judgment and order on sentence. It is contended that PW-2 has no motive to falsely implicate the convict. It is contended that minor inconsistencies in deposition of a witness are natural and the same do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It is contended that the issue that the scooter was unfit or unregistered as per norms is irrelevant. It is contended that even if the scooter was unfit for road use, it does not justify the rash and negligent driving of the convict. It is contended that the Ld. Trial Court in its judgment duly justified why it relied upon the testimony of PW-2 in paras no.19 to 23. It is prayed that the present appeal be dismissed being DLSH010035612024 Page 6 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) devoid of merits.
10. The undersigned has heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and perused the records.
11. The undersigned will now analyse the factors/ grounds considered by the Ld. Trial Court to reach the conclusion of impugned judgment.
(i) In the present case, PW-1 ASI Rajesh Kumar deposed that on 01.05.2016 SI Anuj produced a rukka and he made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW-1/A and got the FIR lodged which is Ex. PW-1/B.
(ii) PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma deposed that he is a Civil Engineer. On 01.05.2016 at about 1:20 pm, he was coming from Ashoka Niketan and going towards Petrol Pump, Anand Vihar for filling up the fuel of his motorcycle and when he stopped at the Red Light, he saw one white bus bearing registration no. DL 1PC 5038 was coming from Karkardooma and going towards Yojna Vihar & had hit a brown colour scooter bearing no. DL 7S 7028 in which one elderly person and one child were sitting. He further deposed that due to the impact, the elderly person fell at the road and the front right tyre of the bus crushed his right leg. He further deposed that the public persons also gathered at the spot and he alongwith some public person took the elderly person to the DLSH010035612024 Page 7 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) hospital, while some other public persons took that child to hospital. He further deposed that he left the hospital after admitting the elderly person. Witness correctly identified the accused in the Court and the offending & accidental vehicles through photographs.
During recording of his testimony, Ld. APP requested to put certain leading questions to the the witness as he was not disclosing the whole facts.
In his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State, it is admitted by him that the accident was caused when the offending vehicle was taking the right turn and the driver of the bus was taking the turn in a rash and negligent manner. It is admitted by him that he identified the driver of the offending vehicle before the IO of this case at Karkardooma Court Complex. It is admitted by him that the registration number of scooter is DL-7S7020 and not DL-7S7028.
Ld. Trial Court also put certain questions to the witness which are as follows:-
Court question: What do you mean by taking right turn in rash and negligent manner.
Ans: The bus as observed by me was running in very high speed and in my opinion, if at that speed brakes would have been applied. The bus would not have stop the accident occurred as the bus was being driven as excessive speed. Court question: Could you tell the speed of the bus with which the accident had occurred.DLSH010035612024 Page 8 of 25 CA No. 115/2024
Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) Ans: At the time of the bus being turned, its speed was approximately 20-30 km per hour. The turn which the bus has to take turn was a sharp turn/ right angle turn.
In his cross-examination, it is stated by him that he was on the left side of the road. It is admitted by him that the signal was green when bus was taking right turn. It is stated by him that he had not made a PCR call regarding the incident. It is stated by him that he did not knew the victim of this case who had suffered the fatal injuries. It is stated by him that he know the person namely Dhruv Krishna after this incident and he (Dhruv Krishna) came to meet him (PW-2). It is stated by him that the above-said person came at his house when he (Dhruv Krishna) know that he (PW-2) took the elderly person to the hospital and he (Dhruv Krishna) requested him (PW-2) to depose the facts of the case before the police official. It is stated by him that he had not signed any document, but had given his written statement regarding the incident. It is stated by him that no other family person, except Dhruv Krishna came to his house after the incident. It is stated by him that he (Dhruv Krishna) came 2-3 times. It is stated by him that he had not given any statement regarding the incident to the police officials after the incident.
(iii) PW-3 Sh. Amit Anand deposed that on 02.05.2016 in Subzi Mandi mortuary he identified dead body of his father-in-law Shri Chand Tarwani, vide memo Ex. PW-3/A. DLSH010035612024 Page 9 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017)
(iv) PW-4 Sh. Dhruv Krishna deposed that on 02.05.2016 in Subzi Mandi mortuary he identified dead body of his father Shri Chand Tarwani, vide memo Ex. PW-4/A and received the dead body vide memo Ex. PW-4/B.
(v) PW-5 Sh. Sumeet Menghani deposed that on 02.05.2016 in Subzi Mandi mortuary he identified dead body of his father-in-
law Shri Chand Tarwani, vide memo Ex. PW-5/A. It is further stated that he also identified dead body of his son namely Tript, vide memo Ex. PW-5/B and received the dead body of his son vide memo Ex. PW-5/C.
(vi) PW-6 retired HC Rohtash Kumar deposed that on 01.05.2016 he was working as D.O. and his duty hours were from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am. He further deposed that on that day at about 1:30 am (midnight) he recorded DD No. 6A which is Ex. PW-6/A. It is explained by him that the DD was recorded in the intervening night of 01.05.2016-02.05.2016 at 1:30 am in the midnight.
(vii) PW-7 ASI Sabir Ali deposed qua dead body identification proceedings and the fact that the dead bodies were sent for postmortem.
(viii) PW-8 Sh. Taslimuddin Siddiqui was the Mechanical Inspector who deposed that on 04.05.2016 upon the request of IO ASI Ved Prakash, P.S. Anand Vihar he inspected Tata bus having DLSH010035612024 Page 10 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) registration no. DL 1PC 5038 and prepared its report Ex. PW-8/A. He further deposed that on 04.05.2016 on the request of IO ASI Ved Prakash, P.S. Anand Vihar he also inspected Bajaj Chetak scooter having registration no. DL 7S 7020 and prepared its report Ex. PW-8/B. It is stated by him that the bus was a six wheeler bus and there was dent on the front bumper. It is stated that the victim's scooter had its rear back light assembly damaged; rear number dented/ pressed; left side body dent/ pressed/ scratched; front left and right side lever ends damaged/ mutha scratched and rear stepney stand dis aligned/ tyre scratched.
(ix) PW-9 Sh. Braham Pal Singh deposed that he is registered owner of the vehicle no. DL 1PC 5038 and on the day of incident i.e. 01.05.2016, he handed over vehicle to the accused Arun Singh (correctly identify by the witness in the Court) for driving. He further deposed that police official has also served a notice U/s 133 M.V. Act (Mark-A) and same was replied by him. He brought the offending vehicle to the Court and exhibited photographs of the offending vehicle as Ex. P-1.
(x) PW-10 HC Banty Singh deposed that on 01.05.2016 he was on emergency duty from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm and on that day on receiving DD No. 14A, he alongwith SI Anuj Kumar went to the spot i.e. Red Light, T-Point near Anand Vihar Petrol Pump, Anand Vihar, Delhi were public persons gathered at the spot and one white colour bus bearing No. DL IPC 5038 was standing and DLSH010035612024 Page 11 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) on the right side of the bus one scooter make Bajaj of brown colour bearing no. DL 7S 7020 was lying on the road. He further deposed that after inquiry, no eye-witness was found at the spot and injured was already taken to the hospital and IO called the Crime Team which inspected the place of incident and took the photographs. He further deposed that Ct. Nitin remained present at the spot and he alongwith SI Anuj Kumar went to the Gowswami Medical Centre where they came to know that injured had already expired and the name of the deceased was Sh. Shirchand. He further deposed that another injured was admitted in Pushpanjali Hospital, Anand Vihar, Delhi and he alongwith IO went to Pushpanjali Hospital where IO collected the MLC No. 788/16 of deceased with Tripath Meghani as per MLC, injured declared dead. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith IO took dead bodies of the deceased to the mortuary at Subzi Mandi and deposited the same and came back at the PS where owner of offending vehicle namely Bharampal Singh produced the driver namely Arun Singh and told that at the time of incident, accused was driving the offending vehicle. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Arun Singh was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW-10/A, DL of accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/B and RC, certificate of fitness, permit and Insurance of offending vehicle same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW-10/C. Witness correctly identified the accused in Court and also identified the offending and accidental vehicles through photographs exhibited as Ex. P-1 (Colly).
DLSH010035612024 Page 12 of 25 CA No. 115/2024Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) In his cross-examination, it is stated by him that on the spot IO did not record statement of any person. It is stated that no photographs were taken when they reached the spot. It is stated that Crime Team might have taken the photographs of the spot.
(xi) PW-11 SI Ved Prakash deposed that on 02.05.2016 he was posted at MACT Cell, DCP Office East as ASI and on that day, investigation of the present case was marked to him. He further deposed that he went to the Subzi Mandi mortuary for the postmortem of the dead bodies and after postmortem, he asked the expert to conduct the mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle i.e. bus and victim scooter. He further deposed that thereafter, he went to Goswami Medical Centre where he recorded the statement of Dr. P.K. Goswami. He further deposed that on 02.07.2016 eye-witness namely Shridutt Sharma came to the MACT Cell and brief him regarding the incident and he recorded his statement and on the same day accused was served notice to join the TIP proceedings however accused refused to participate in the TIP proceedings. He further deposed that after filing of DAR before MACT Court, accused produced before MACT Court and where eye-witness Shridutt Sharma identified the accused person and he recorded his statement. Witness correctly identified the accused in court and also identified the offending and accidental vehicles through photograph. It is stated by him that he had examined Suresh Chand Sharma (he is talking about PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Chand Sharma) who came at the Police Station alongwith DLSH010035612024 Page 13 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) Dhruv Krishna (son of deceased) on 02.07.2016 at 11:00 am.
(xii) PW-12 Dr. Ravi, CMO, Hedgewar Hospital deposed that on 01.05.2016 at about 4:16 pm, patient Shri Chand brought in unconscious state by police at Hedgewar Hospital and he examined the patient and found no sign of life and he was declared brought dead. He further deposed that Thereafter, he prepared MLC No. 1396/2016 Ex. PW-12/A and registration card of the patient Shri Chand, Ex. PW-12/B.
(xiii) PW-13 HC Nitin deposed that On 01.05.2016, he was on beat day duty and received information from IO SI Anuj Kumar about an accident taken place near Yamuna Sports Complex red light. He further deposed that he reached at the spot and found a white colour bus bearing no. DL 1PC 5038 standing and a scooter bearing no. DL 7S 7020 (brown colour) lying on the right side of the bus. He further deposed that IO was also present at the spot and he left him at the spot and IO along with Ct. Banty went to Goswami Hospital. He further deposed that after some time, they returned back to the spot and IO seized said bus was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/A and the above said scooter was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW13/B and IO deposited the said vehicles in Malkhana.
In his cross-examination, it is stated by him that he received the call qua incident at about 1:00-2:00 pm. He reached the spot within 5-10 minutes. It is stated that when he reached the DLSH010035612024 Page 14 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) spot some public persons were already present there. It is stated that IO did not record statement of any public person in his presence. It is stated by him that there were no passengers/ students or teacher staff present in the bus at the time when they reached there. He could not tell if there were any CCTV camera installed at the spot. It is stated by him that the scooter was at the right side of the back tyre of the bus.
(xiv) PW-14 SI Anuj who was IO of the present case, deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW-10, PW-11 and PW-13. This witness exhibited the DD No. 14A as Ex. PW-14/A. It is stated by him that he had prepared the rukka which is exhibited by him as Ex. PW-14/B. It is stated that he had prepared the site plan and exhibited as Ex. PW-14/C. He exhibited the notice U/s 133 M.V. Act as Ex. PW-14/D. In his cross-examination, it is stated by him that he reached the spot at about 1:45 pm. It is stated that 20-25 persons were gathered at the spot at that time. It is stated that he did not record statements of those public persons as they were not the eye-witnesses. It is stated by him that the spot was a T-Point. It is stated by him that the scooty was lying near the left tyre of the bus. The Red Light was situated at the spot of incident. It is denied by him that the offending vehicle was running in the correct direction and the victim after breaking the Red Light hit the right side of the back tyre of the offending vehicle due to which accident took place and injuries were caused upon person DLSH010035612024 Page 15 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) of the complainant. It is stated by him that it is a matter of record that in the photographs Ex. P-1 (Colly) there are blood stains. It is stated by him that he had not recorded the statement of the photographer.
(xv) On 04.10.2023, vide statement recorded U/s 294 Cr.P.C., accused admitted MLC No. 788/16 of Pushpanjali Medical Care, Report of Dr. P.K. Goswami, PM Report No. 722/16 of Shri Chand and PM Report No. 721/16 of Tript.
(xvi) Thereafter, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he admitted that at the time and place of incident he was driving the offending vehicle, though it is denied by him that his vehicle had hit the scooter, rather it is stated by him that the said scooter hit on the rear tyre of his bus after breaking the Red Light. It is also stated by him that there were traffic police officials present at the spot.
12. Thus, in the present case, the spot and timing of the incident as well as identities of the vehicles involved are not disputed. The fact that accused Arun Singh was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time and place is also not disputed, the same is also proved by testimony of PW-9/ owner of the vehicle, reply to notice U/s 133 M.V. Act, further accused has also not disputed the same. The factum of death of victims namely Shri Chand Tarwani and Tript, is also not disputed, same is also DLSH010035612024 Page 16 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) proved by their MLCs and Postmortem Reports exhibited on record. Thus, the only contentious issue to be decided in the present case is whether the said accident took place due to rashness or negligence on the part of the accused Arun Singh.
13. Ld. Trial Court relied on testimony of PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma, site plan as well as mechanical inspection reports of the vehicles to analyze the manner of accident. Ld. Trial Court has observed that PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma was not an interested witness. He had no motive to falsely implicate the accused. It is also observed by the Ld. Trial Court that this witness took the elderly victim to the hospital as per his deposition. Further, he has also deposed that the offending vehicle was carrying school students which fact could not have came into the knowledge of PW-2, had he been a planted witness. It is also observed that the testimony of this witness was recorded after two months as attitude of the police was lackadaisical and inaction on the part of the police was writ large.
14. Relying upon the testimony of PW-2, Ld. Trial Court reached the conclusion that accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the death of two victims as offending bus driven by the accused hit the scooter driven by the victims.
15. The undersigned has perused the testimonies of all the DLSH010035612024 Page 17 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) witnesses alongwith all the documents and reports available on Trial Court Record. From analyses of the same, following important facts come to light :-
(i) PW-10 HC Banty Singh and PW-14 SI Anuj were the first two police officials who reached the spot on receiving the information qua accident. They were followed by PW-13 HC Nitin. All of these three witnesses have stated about public persons being gathered at the spot of the incident, but none of them had recorded statement of any such public witness. None of them have stated, if PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Chand Sharma or any other eye-witness met them at the spot.
(ii) PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Chand Sharma did not call/ inform the police immediately after the incident. He did not apprise his name to the Doctor when he allegedly took the elderly victim to the hospital.
(iii) MLC of victim Tript (Ex. A-1) prepared at Pushpanjali Medical Centre on 01.05.2016 at 1:15 pm shows that he was brought to the hospital by one Lokesh Khillar, having mobile no.
9599661738. However, the said Lokesh Khillar was not joined in investigation by the police. This witness was apparently not contacted by any family member of the deceased victims, despite the fact that his phone number was available on the MLC.
DLSH010035612024 Page 18 of 25 CA No. 115/2024Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017)
(iv) The MLC of victim Shri Chand (Ex. A-2) prepared at Goswami Medical Centre on 01.05.2016 at 1:20 pm shows that he was brought by a crowd of 15-20 persons. There is no phone number or name of any of the person who had brought the victim to the hospital.
Another MLC of victim Shri Chand prepared on 01.05.2016 at 16:16 pm at Hedgewar Arogya Sansthan shows that he was brought by Ct. Banty.
(v) From the above-stated facts, it is clear that on any MLC name of the witness PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma was not mentioned as the person who had brought the victim to the hospital.
(vi) Statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma was recorded on 02.07.2016. Even in his evidence, he stated that he reached the police on 02.07.2016. Thus, existence of this witness came to light only two months after the incident.
(vii) In such circumstances, a question arises how the family members of the victims in particular PW-4 Sh. Dhruv Krishna reached PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma. There are two inconsistent theories mentioned whereby PW-4 Sh. Dhruv Krishna reached PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma which are as follows :-
(a) In his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma has stated that on 02.07.2016 i.e. two months after the incident DLSH010035612024 Page 19 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) family members of the victims namely Sh. Dhruv Krishna was making inquiry at the place of incident qua any eye-witness of the incident. On that this witness incidentally met Sh. Dhruv Krishna and apprised him that he had witnessed the incident and thereafter, Sh. Dhruv Krishna brought him (Shreesh Dutt Sharma) to the police.
(b) In contrast to his above-stated statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C., in his examination before the Court, he stated that family member of the victim namely Sh. Dhruv Krishna came to his house when he (Dhruv Krishna) came to know that this witness (PW-2 Sh.
Shreesh Dutt Sharma) had taken the elderly victim to the hospital.
Thus, there is apparent contradiction as to how family members of the victims, specifically Sh. Dhruv Krishna contacted PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma. Interestingly, Sh. Dhruv Krishna who has been examined as PW-4 in the present matter has nowhere stated how he met PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma or if any effort was made by him (Dhruv Krishna) to trace the eye- witnesses of the incident.
(viii) There are missing link in the story of prosecution as to how PW-4 Sh. Dhruv Krishna reached the house of PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma as neither name or any other particular of Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma was mentioned in any MLC, PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma had not called the police after the incident, it DLSH010035612024 Page 20 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) has not been mentioned if any other person had apprised Sh. Dhruv Krishna about Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma and no name of any such person who linked Sh. Dhruv Krishna and Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma has been apprised to the Court.
(ix) It is deposed by PW-10 HC Banty Singh that when he reached the spot he saw that the victim's scooter was lying on the road on the right side of the offending bus.
It is deposed by PW-13 HC Nitin that the scooter (victim's vehicle) was at the right side of the back tyre of the bus.
Per contra, it is deposed by PW-14 SI Anuj that the victim's scooty was lying near the front left tyre of the offending bus.
Thus, testimonies of the three police witnesses who reached the spot first in time are having inconsistencies as two of them are saying that victim's vehicle was on the right side and one of them is saying that victim's vehicle was on the left side of the offending bus.
(x) Though, the photographer who had taken photographs of the spot of incident has not been made a witness in the present case, but there are a number of photographs available on record of the place of incident showing position of both the vehicles as well as pool of blood. These photographs are collectively exhibited on record as Ex. P-1. From analysis of these photographs following facts came to light :-
DLSH010035612024 Page 21 of 25 CA No. 115/2024Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017)
(a) The victim's scooter was lying on the right side of the bus i.e. the driver side.
(b) The scooter was lying near/ after the rear tyre of the bus i.e. towards tail of the bus.
(c) There is pool of blood near the rear tyre of the bus. The rear tyre is also having blood stains, a helmet is lying underneath the bus.
(d) The bus is having six tyres i.e. the axle at the rear is having two tyres on each side.
From analyses of these photographs, it appears that the victim came under the rear right side two tyres of the bus and not under the front tyre as there is no marks of tyre having blood stain present ahead of the pool of blood near the rear tyres. Thus, these photographs filed on behalf of the prosecution establish that the victims came under the rear tyre of the bus, not the front tyre.
This conclusion also get confirmation from the MLC and Postmortem Report of victim Shri Chand Tarwani as he had received injuries from chest to front of left thigh as all his ribs were fractured, he had injuries at inguinal area and at front of left thigh, which suggest that he was run over by two tyres jointly i.e. the rear axle which had two tyres.
The fact that victim Shri Chand Tarwani was ran over by DLSH010035612024 Page 22 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) rear right side tyres (two tyres) falsifies the claim of PW-2 that he was the eye-witness as, as per his testimony the victim was ran over by front tyre. It is to be noted that man may lie, but circumstances do not. In the present case, circumstances of the spot of incident are inconsistent with the oral testimony of PW-2.
(xi) In the present matter, on the very same day of the incident accused appeared before the police, his disclosure statement was recorded from which it came to light that he was carrying school students at the time of incident. Thus, the fact disclosed by PW-2 that bus was carrying school students was already in the knowledge of persons investigating the case. Hence, this knowledge could have been gathered by PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma from family members of the deceased victims or from police officials.
16. In view of the above-stated discussions, it can be safely held that PW-2 Sh. Shreesh Dutt Sharma is a planted witness. Thus, prosecution has failed to examine any eye-witness of the incident in question. In such circumstances, prosecution failed to prove that the bus was being driven in a 'rash' and 'negligent' manner, which is an essential ingredient to prove the offences punishable U/s 279 or 304A IPC. A road accident simplicitor without 'rashness' and 'negligence' on part of the drivers involved will not qualify to be an offence punishable U/s 279 or 304A IPC.
DLSH010035612024 Page 23 of 25 CA No. 115/2024Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017)
17. In case titled as "Abdul Subhan Vs. State, NCT of Delhi ", 2007 Cr.L.J 1089, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed that, "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 presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitor".
18. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. The accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to be acquitted. Needless to say in this case also, with or without defence evidence, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Similarly, in the present case, certain suggestions given by DLSH010035612024 Page 24 of 25 CA No. 115/2024 Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017) Ld. Defence Counsel which are not in consonance with the defence of the accused will not prejudice the accused.
19. From an insightful perusal of the records of the case and testimonies of the witnesses, nowhere it has been established that PW-2 was the eye-witness of the incident in question. Thus, there is no evidence to establish 'rashness' and 'negligence' on the part of the convict.
20. In view of the above stated discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence coming on record entitles the convict for the benefit of doubt.
21. In such circumstances, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the appellant/ convict qua commission of offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC. Accordingly, the present appeal stands allowed and appellant/ convict Arun Singh is acquitted for the offences punishable U/s 279/304A IPC. The impugned judgment dated 27.02.2024 qua conviction of appellant/ convict as well as order on sentence dated 30.04.2024 cannot be sustained and the same are set-aside.
22. Copy of this judgment alongwith Trial Court Record be sent to the Ld. Trial Court for information.
DLSH010035612024 Page 25 of 25 CA No. 115/2024Arun Singh Vs. State NCT of Delhi FIR No. 224/2016 (CR Cases 1578/2017)
23. This appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
GAJENDER signed by
Announced in the open Court SINGH GAJENDER
on 22nd April 2026 NAGAR SINGH
NAGAR
(Gajender Singh Nagar)
Special Judge (NDPS Act)
Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts
Delhi/22.04.2026