Delhi District Court
State vs Manoj Kumar on 16 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PRESIDING OFFICER: MS. SAYESHA CHADHA, DJS
FIR No. 283/2014
PS : Kamla Market
U/s 338 IPC and 122/177 MV
Act
State vs. Manoj Kumar
Date of Institution of case : 14.01.2016
Date when Judgment reserved : 15.04.2025
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 16.05.2025
JUDGMENT
A. Case No. : 299837/16
B. Date of Institution of Case : 14.01.2016
C. Date of Commission of Offence : 02.10.2014
D. Name of the complainant : Sh. Rohit Kumar
E. Name of the Accused : Manoj Kumar
& his parentage and residence S/o Sh. Dharamveer, R/o
E-4/206, 4th Pusta, Sonia
Vihar, Delhi.
F. Offences complained of : U/s 338 Indian Penal
Code and 122/177 MV Act
G. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty
H. Final order : Convicted
I. Date of such order : 16.05.2025
Brief statement of reasons for decision of the case:
State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 1/26
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 02.10.2014 at about 09.45 am at Minto Road, Red Light, Kamla Market, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kamla Market, accused left his vehicle i.e. Ambassador Car bearing registration no. DL9CQ0365 unattended / abandoned at the aforesaid public place causing danger, obstruction and undue inconvenience to the public and on the aforesaid date, time and place, accused left the said Car unattended on the wrong side and middle of the road in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and public safety in consequence of which complainant got struck his motorcycle bearing registration no. DL6SQ4492 against the said car and sustained grievous hurt and thereby committing an offence punishable u/s 338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as IPC) and 122/177 MV Act.
2. Upon conclusion of investigation, a final report was filed before the court on 14.01.2016 against the accused. Cognizance of offence punishable u/s 338 IPC and 122/177 MV Act was taken. Upon summoning, the accused appeared and copies of charge sheet were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C). Thereafter, notice for offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and opted for trial.
3. Thereafter, the prosecution was given the opportunity to substantiate the allegations against the accused. The prosecution examined 14 (fourteen) witnesses in support of its case:
State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 2/26
4. PW-1 Rohit Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.10.14, at about 9.45 AM, he alongwith his friend Dheeraj Raghav, were going to Minto Road, from Cannought place on a motorcycle, which number, he did not remember today. His friend Dheeraj Raghav was driving the motorcycle and he was sitting on pillion seat. When they reached at Minto Road, Red Light. A Ambassador car bearing no. DL- 9CQ 0365 was parked on wrong side at Minto Road, Near Red Light. When Dheeraj Raghav crossed the red light, the motorcycle hit with the said Ambassador car. Dheeraj Raghav failed to control over his motorcycle and they both fell down alongwith motorcycle. They sustained injuries. PCR officials reached there and they were taken to the hospital by PCR officials. Police also reached at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. The driver of Ambassador car was present in court. He has correctly accused. Accused had parked his car on wrong side on the road, due to which accident was occurred. He has correctly identified the photographs of the Ambassador car bearing no. DL-9CQ 0365 and motorcycle bearing no. DL-6S Q 4492 Ex. P1.
5. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-1 denied that at the time of incident he was minor. He did not know the name of registered owner of said motorcycle. He did not know whether Dheeraj Raghav was having DL at the time of incident. He did not know whether the Ambassador car was belonged to CISF Department. He denied that the police officials State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 3/26 were checking the vehicles passing through the red light as it was the day of 2nd October. He denied that CISF officials had got stop them for the purpose of checking and due to avoid checking, Dheeraj Raghav lost control over the motorcycle and as a result hit with Ambassador car. My date of birth is 02.09.95. He denied that at the time of incident they were influenced of liquor. He did not know whether his father Subhash Chand had made endorsement on his MLC by stating that they do not want any action in respect of the accident. At that time, he was not having driving license. You were not sitting inside the car, again said, he was inside the car. He denied that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent act of Dheeraj Raghav. He denied that there was no negligent on the part of accused Manoj. He denied that they got falsely registered the case against the accused as the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of Dheeraj Raghav and they have apprehension to register a case against them. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW-2 Dheeraj Raghav has deposed in his examination-in- chief that it was the incident of 02.10.14. On that day, at about 9.45 AM, he alongwith his friend Rohit, were going to Minto Road, from Cannought place on a motorcycle no. DL-6SQ 4492. He was driving the motorcycle and his friend Rohit was sitting on pillion seat. When they reached at Minto Road, Red Light. A Ambassador car bearing no. DL- 9CQ 0365 was parked on wrong side at Minto Road, Near Red Light. When he crossed the red light, his State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 4/26 motorcycle hit with the said Ambassador car as there was no indicator lighting on the said car. They fell down alongwith motorcycle. He sustained injury on his left leg and Rohit also sustained injury on his left leg. PCR officials reached there and they were taken to the hospital by PCR officials. Police also reached at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point A. He has correctly identified accused by pointing out towards accused. Accused had parked his car on wrong side on the road, due to which accident was occurred. Accused was talking on telephone near his car. He has correctly identified the photographs of the Ambassador car bearing no. DL-9CQ 0365 and motorcycle bearing no. DL-6S Q 4492 Ex. P1.
7. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-2 stated that at the time of incident, he was below 18 years. He admitted that he was not having DL at the time of accident. Now a day, he had not got issued any DL in his name. The said motorcycle was registered in the name of his father. He was aware that a minor should not drive any vehicle. He denied that he was under the influence of alcohol. At that time, accused Manoj was not sitting inside the car. The accused Manoj was receiving call on his mobile phone at that time, at a distance of 5-6 feet from the said car. He admitted that due to the day of 2nd October the checking of vehicles were going on for security purpose at the spot. He did not know whether the said Ambassador car was belongs to CISF department. He denied that the police officials tried to got State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 5/26 stop him for the purpose of checking and he lost control over the motorcycle as he was not intend to check myself as he was minor and was not able to drive the motorcycle. He denied that his motorcycle was hit with the car due to his rash and negligent act as he was evading himself from police officials to avoid checked himself. He denied that there was no negligent on the part of accused. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
8. PW-3 ASI Jagdish Prasad has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 02.10.14, at about 9.30 AM, he alongwith his staff and PCR vehicle were standing at our point, near red light, Minto Road, New Delhi. One Ambassador Car No. DL-9CQ 0365, came from New Delhi Railway Station side and driver of its car parked the car just near the red light after crossing the same. The driver get down from the car and started talking at his mobile phone. No indicator of car was on and no other safety measures were taken by the driver, while parking the said car. Two persons on a motorcycle no. DL-6S Q 4492, came from connaught place side and after crossing the red light, their motorcycle collided with aforesaid parked car. As a result both the persons fell down and sustained injuries. They took both the injured to JPN Hospital, where they medically examined. The name of the driver of motorcycle was revealed as Dhiraj Raghav and the name of pillion rider of the motorcycle was revealed as Rohit. He has correctly identified accused. He has correctly identified the photographs of motorcycle no. DL 6S Q 4492 and car bearing no. DL-9CQ 0365, Ex. P1.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 6/26
9. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-3 denied that there were vehicle checking going on by CRP due to the day of 2nd October. He admitted that the motorcycle was collided with the parked car. He did not know whether the motorcyclist driver was having valid license or not. He also did not know whether the driver of motorcycle was minor or major at the time of incident. He was already present near the spot prior to the incident. He did not know whether CRP commandant was present at the spot at that time or not. He admitted that the accused was not at the driver seat of car at the time of incident. He denied that there was no negligence at the part of the accused (driver of the car). He voluntarily stated that the accused had parked his car on wrong side just near the red light without lighting on the indicator or taking safety measurement. His staff was also present there. He denied that the driver of the motorcyclist had lost his control over motorcycle on seeing PCR as he was minor and as a result his motorcycle collided with car. He denied that he was not eyewitness of incident or that he was deposing falsely.
10. PW-4 Retired ASI / Tech Devender Kumar has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 05.10.14, he mechanically inspected the motorcycle bearig no. DL-6S Q 4492, make Hero Honda, CD Dawn and car bearing no. DL9C Q 0365, make Ambassador at PS Kamla Market at the request of IO SI Ravi. He prepared the detailed mechanical inspection report of above motorcycle Ex. PW4/A, bearing his signature at point A the report State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 7/26 is in his handwriting. The fresh damages were found on the body of vehicle, as mentioned in his report. The vehicle was found fit for road test. He also prepared the detailed mechanical inspection report of above Ambassador Car. The same exhibited as Ex. PW4/B, bearing his signature at point A, the report is in his handwriting. The fresh damages were found on the body of vehicle, as mentioned in his report. The vehicle was found fit for road test.
11. PW-5 ASI Brij Mohan has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 02.10.14, he was posted at PS Kamla Market as Duty Officer as well as MHC(M). On that day, at about 9.55 AM, a PCR call was received that at Minto Road, Red Light two persons on motorcycle sustained injuries in accident and they are taken to hospital. The said information was reduced by him in writing in Daily Diary register vide DD No. 13-A. The copy of the same was handed over to SI Ravi for taking necessary action and Sl Ravi departed to the spot alongwith Ct. Manmohan. He brought the original DD register. The photocopy of the same exhibited as Ex. PW5/A. On that day, at about 1.00 PM, the rukka was received through Ct. Manmohan, sent by SI Ravi. On the basis of which, FIR No. 283/14, u/s. 337 IPC and u/s. 122/177 MV Act was registered by the computer operator on the computer installed in DO room, which was kept in lawful control and safe custody at the time of generating E-record and derived from the computer in ordinary course of taking printout and the same was operating properly at the time of generating electronic record. He made an State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 8/26 endorsement on rukka vide DD No. 15-A in this respect, the same exhibited as Ex. PW5/B, bearing his signature at point A. The printout of the FIR alongwith rukka were handed over to Ct. Manmohan for handing over the same to IO. One another printout was kept as a record in PS. He brought the FIR register. Copy/printout of the FIR exhibited as Ex. PW5/C, bearing his signature at point A. He had issued the certificate u/s. 65-B Evidence Act, the same exhibited as Ex. PW5/D, bearing his signature at point A. On that day, IO SI Ravi deposited the case property i.e., accidental Ambessador car no. DL 9C Q 0365 and motorcycle no. DL-6S Q 4492, in Maalkhana. In this respect, he made entry in register no. 19 vide serial no. 532/2808, which is in his handwriting. On 20.10.2014, the aforesaid car was released on superdari to Shri Manoj and the aforesaid motorcycle was released to Jagbir Singh. In this regard, he also made an entry, in register no.
19. He brought the original register no. 19. Photocopy of the same exhibited as Ex. PW5/E.
12. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-5 admitted that he did not vist the spot.
13. PW6 HC Bharat Vir has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.10.14, he was on duty at Minto Road near Kali Mata Mandir. It came to know that a road accident has been happened near red light, Minto Road. He reached there and found one Ambassador car bearing registration no. DL-9CQ 0365 and one State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 9/26 motorcycle no. 4492 was found in accidental condition. Ct. Manmohan was also present there. After sometime Ct. Manmohan went to hospital with IO and he remained at the spot. The above mentioned Ambassador car, motorcycle remained safe. IO recorded his statement.
14. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-6 stated that the information regarding accident was received through public persons but he did not remember their names. He did not ask the name of public persons. He was not eyewitness of the accident. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
15. PW-7 Ct. Manmohan has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.10.14, he was on emergency duty with SI Ravi. On receiving DD No. 13-A, he alongwith SI Ravi reached at Minto Road, Red Light, where one motorcycle no. 4492, which detailed number, he did not remember today and one ambassador car no. 0365 but complete number he did not remember today were standing there. It came to know that the injured person has been taken to LNJP Hospital by PCR. IO left him at the spot and thereafter he went to hospital. After sometime Ct. Bharatvir came at the spot and he left Ct. Bharatvir at the spot and thereafter, he went to hospital. IO made enquiry from the injured persons, whose name revealed as Rahul and Dheeraj and they received injuries in road accident as they were going on aforesaid motorcycle. Again said the name of injured was revealed as Rohit and not Rahul. Both State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 10/26 the injured persons identified a person as the driver of aforesaid ambassador car who caused the accident. The name of that person revealed as Manoj Kumar, who was the accused. He has correctly identified accused. IO prepared the rukka and handed over to him for registration of the FIR with direction to return at the spot after getting the case registered. He went to PS and got registered the case. Thereafter, he reached at the spot where IO and Ct. Bharatvir met him. He handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO. IO inspected the site and prepared the site plan. IO seized the motorcycle and ambassador car vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B, bearing his signature at point A respectively. IO also seized his DL vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/C, bearing his signature at point A. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/D and personal search memo Ex. PW7/E. The both the vehicles were taken to the police station. MHC(M) submitted that the motorcycle and the ambassador car have already been released to the superdar. The photographs of the motorcycle no. DL 6S Q 4492 and Ambassador car no. DL 9C Q 0365 placed on record. He has correctly identified the photographs of motorcycle and ambassador car Ex. P1.
16. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-7 stated that on that day, his duty hours from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. They left the police station at about 8.30 AM. They had reached at the spot by motorcycle. The distance between the spot and the police station was about half kilometer. They State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 11/26 reached at the spot from police station within 10 minutes. IO did not record the statement of the public persons who were met at the spot. IO remained at the spot for about 10 minutes and thereafter he went to hospital. Ct. Bharatvir arrived at the spot at about 10.30 AM. He went to PS by bus. He denied that he did not join the investigation of this case with the IO either at the spot or at hospital. He denied that he signed the documents at the instance of IO at the police station. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
17. PW-8 Jai Prakash Sharma has deposed in his examination-in- chief that he was the owner of vehicle i.e. white colour Ambassador car bearing no. 365, however, he did not remember the entire number. Accused was driver. He had not brought the Ambassador Car. The photographs of the car placed on record. The same are shown to the witness and he correctly identified the car in the photographs Ex.P1. His reply to the notice u/s. 133 MV Act exhibited as Ex. PWS/A, bearing his signature at point A. Witness after going through Ex. PW8/A stated that the fact from point A to A1 was not recorded at his instance. Further, witness states that you might have informed about the accident in his office but not to him. He had taken the above said Ambassador Car on superdari through his attorney namely Manoj, who was his supervisor at the relevant time. The superdarinama exhibited as Ex. PW8/B, bearing his signature at point A. He can identity his signatures as he had worked with him and he had seen him writing and signing. He has correctly identified accused. He admitted that the date of accident State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 12/26 was 02.10.14. He admitted that the complete number of Ambassador white colour car was DL 9C Q 0365. He came to know about the accident with the said Ambassador Car later on. Witness produced true copy of Muster Roll Register of October 2014 of Jay Pee & Company, DT-3, 3rd Floor, Bansal Plaza Commercial Complex, Sec. 6, Dwarka, New Delhi. Same exhibited as Ex. PW8/C bearing his signature at point A & B.
18. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-8 stated that he completed his B.A. second year. The name of his company is Jay Pee and Company. His company is in existence since 1994. Almost about 400 drivers are employed in his company. He used to maintain their record. He has not brought the record of accused Manoj as a driver in his company since he was not instructed to do so. He did not remember the date when he served notice u/s. 133 M.V. Act to him. Police officials came to his office where he had given reply Ex. PW8/A. He admitted that the said reply was in the handwriting of police official. He has the record regarding the employment of accused Manoj of 02.10.14, i.e. the date of accident. He did not remember the phone number of accused Manoj. He denied that Manoj was not working in his office as driver. He denied that Ex. PW8/A was recorded at the instance of the IO. He denied that accused Manoj had left the services from his company on 28.08.14. He denied that he was deposing falsely. He admitted that he has not brought certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act. He denied that Ex. PW8/C was forged and fabricated State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 13/26 documents.
19. PW-9 SI Ravi Tushir has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.10.14, he was on day emergency duty with Ct. Man Mohan. At about 9.55 AM, he received DD No. 13-A from DO regarding accident at red light, Minto Road, Delhi. Accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Man Mohan reached at the spot where one Ambassador Car bearing no. DL 9C Q 0365 and motorcycle bearing no. DL 6S Q 4492 was stationed in accidental condition. He enquired from the public persons at the spot and came to know that the injured persons have already been removed to the LNJP hospital by the PCR Van. He left Ct.Man Mohan at the spot and he himself went to LNJP Hospital. In the hospital, he found two injured persons namely Rohit S/o. Subhash and Dheeraj Raghav S/o. Jagbir admitted there. He enquired from them about the accident. Accused was also present in the Hospital. He had recorded the statement of Rohit in the Hospital Ex.PW1/A, bearing his signature at point B. He called Ct. Bharatvir to reach at the spot and directed him to send Ct. Man Mohan to the hospital. He prepared the rukka on the statement of Rohit Ex.PW9/A, bearing his signature at point B. He handed over the rukka to Ct.Man Mohan for registration of the FIR and also directed him to come back to the spot after registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he alongwith accused and after collecting MLC went to the spot. He has correctly identified accused. At the spot, he had enquired from IC/HC Jagbir of PCR Van Oscar 16 about the accident. In the State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 14/26 meanwhile Ct Man Mohan also arrived at the spot with the copy of FIR and original rukka alongwith certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act and he handed over the same to him. He prepared the site plan at the instance of IC/HC Jagbir Ex.PW9/B, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, He recorded the statement of IC/HC Jagbir and relieved him from the spot. He arrested accused at the spot vide memo Ex. PW7/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW7/E, both bearing his signature at point B. He seized the above said motorcycle and car vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B, both bearing his signature at point B. He also seized the documents related to the motorcycle as well as the documents of the car including the DL of the accused vide memo Ex.PW9/C and Ex. PW7/C respectively, both bearing his signature at point X. He got verified the documents of car as well as of motorcycle from the concerned authority. He also got motorcycle and Ambassador Car mechanically inspected vide his request Ex.PW9/D and PW9/E respectively, both bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he was transferred and handed over the case file to MHC(R) on 19.11.14. He has correctly identified the photographs of the motorcycle and Ambassador Car Ex. P1.
20. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-9 stated that he reached at the spot within 10/15 minutes after receiving DD no. 13A. He admitted that prior to receiving DD no.13A, he did not know about the identity of vehicle State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 15/26 and accused. When he reached at the spot, he found 4/5 persons there. He had asked those public persons to join the investigation but none agreed to join the same. However, public persons gathered at the spot showed me both accidental vehicles i.e. motorcycle and car. HC Jagdish, incharge of PCR van was an eye witness to the incident and he had recorded his statement. No photographs were taken at the spot by him. He met with accused Manoj Kumar in the hospital at about 11.30 am when he reached there. On that day, he had recorded the statement of Ct. Bharat Veer, HC Jagdish and Ct. Manmohan u/s 161 CrPC. He had recorded the statement of injured Rohit on the basis of that statement, FIR has been registered. He had recorded the statement of Ct. Bharat Veer and HC Jagdish at the spot at about 2.00 pm and statement of Ct. Manmohan at PS after completion investigation of that day. He denied that he had not recorded any statement as stated by him. He left the spot for hospital at about 10.30/10.45 am. He went to PS from spot at about 3.00 pm. He had prepared the site plan at about 1.30/1.45 pm. He remained in hospital for almost 2 hours. He had gone to hospital on his personal vehicle i.e. Wagon-R bearing no. DL-8CR-1367. He had not moved any application to obtain permission from concerned doctor to record of statement of Dheeraj Raghav. He voluntarily stated that as Dheeraj Raghav himself told that he was unable to give statement due to pain. He had not recorded second statement of complainant Rohit. He had handed rukka to Ct. Manmohan at about 12.30 pm. He handed over to him copy of FIR State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 16/26 and rukka at about 1.45 pm. No public person joined investigation at the time of arrest and personal search of accused Manoj Kumar. He did not remember the exact time when accused was released on bail. He did not remember date on which mechanical inspection of vehicles were conducted. He denied that accused was not involved in the present case. He denied that accident was caused by some other vehicle and car bearing no. DL-9CQ-0365 was falsely implicated in the present case to take insurance claim. He denied that accused falsely implicated in the present case. He denied that he had not investigated the present case properly.
21. PW-10 Dr. Anuradha Dawani has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.10.2014, he was posted at Lok Nayak Hospital as Senior Resident in the department of Radiodiagnosis. On that day, he examined x-ray report of a patient namely Dhiraj who was referred to Radiology Department. The said x-ray report of was left knee and left ankle. After going through the report, he found that x-ray showed fracture of distal third of shaft of left tibia. His detailed report Ex. PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. On that day, he also examined the x-ray report of patient namely Rohit who was referred to Radiology Department. The said x-ray report was of pelvis with bilateral hips and left knee. He found that x-ray report shows fracture of mid shaft of left tibia. His detailed report exhibited as Ex. PW10/B bearing his signature at point A. State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 17/26
22. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-10 stated that she only mentioned her opinion on back side of requisition form of both patient. The requisition form used to be produced by the attendant or the patient. She did not remember the exact time when she examined x-ray and prepared her report. She cannot tell the duration of stay of both patient before him.
23. PW-11 Retired SI Mahender Singh has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02.06.2015, he was posted as Sub Inspector at PS Kamla Market. He received the Case file of the present case from the MHC(R) and after 10 to 15 days, the case file was again transferred to ASI Jitesh for the further investigation.
24. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-11 stated that he did not investigate the case after the receiving of the case file. He did not prepared any documents in the present case. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
25. PW-12 HC Jitesh has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 09.02.2015, he obtained the MLC result. Thereafter, he filed challan in the court. The final report bears his signature at point A. He was the third IO in this matter. Apart from this, he had not conducted any investigation in this matter.
26. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-12 stated that he was the IO in this matter only State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 18/26 14-15 days. He had not recorded any statement of witnesses in this matter. He admitted that he did not have any personal knowledge of this case.
27. PW-13 Dr. Anshul has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 20.10.2014, he was posted at Casualty Department, LNJP Hospital as a Sr. Resident, Ortho. On that day, Dr. Amit, CMO, examined one patient Rohit s/o Sh. Subhash, age 19 years, Male and prepared the MLC No. EBJ001041 exhibited as Ex. PW13/A, bearing his signature at point A. On the basis of MLC and X-ray report, he opined the nature injury as grievous on the MLC of Rohit. On that day, Dr. Amit, CMO, examined one patient Dhiraj s/o Sh. Jagbir Singh, age 17 years, Male and prepared the MLC No. EBJ001043 which is exhibited as Ex. PW13/B, bearing his signature at point A. On the basis of MLC and X-ray report, he opined the nature injury as grievous on the MLC of Dhiraj. He left the services from the hospital in the year July 2015.
28. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-13 stated that he does not have any personal knowledge regarding the present case. He cannot comment whether on that day of examination, patients were under drunken condition or not. He does not have any information that mother of injured Rohit was working at LNJP hospital. He does not know whether father of Rohit asked the CMO not to make any legal formality. He was not able to comment on the date mentioned in the MLC Ex.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 19/26 PW13/A bearing portion X and Y. He was also not able to comment on the date mentioned in the MLC Ex. PW13/B bearing portion X, Y and Z. He denied that he prepared the MLCs injury report under the influence of IO. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
29. PW-14 Dr Amit Gupta has deposed in his examination-in- chief that on 02.10.2014, he was posted as Casualty Medical Officer at LNJP Hospital and the MLCs exhibited as Ex.PW13/A of victim Rohit and MLC ExPW13/B of victim Dheeraj were prepared by Junior Resident doctor under his supervision.
30. During cross-examination of the witness by Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW-14 stated that he does not have any personal knowledge of the facts of the present case. He admitted that he has not signed on the above-said MLCs. He admitted that on the MLC of Dheeraj, date is mentioned as 02.09.2014. He denied that the abovesaid MLCs were prepared at the instance of IO.
31. The prosecution evidence was closed on 03.02.2024 and the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 read with section 281 of CrPC on 29.10.2024, wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated to have been falsely implicated. The accused has not opted to lead defence evidence. Final arguments were heard. I have cogitated over the submissions made by ld. APP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the accused person.
State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 20/26 DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREON:
32. I have heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and carefully perused the documents on record.
33. In order to ensure seamless appraisal of evidence, the court has framed the following points of determination.
1. Whether the accused on 02.10.2014 at about 9.45 am, at Minto Road, Red Light, left his vehicle i.e., Ambassodor car bearing registration no. DL-9CQ-0365 unattended / abondoned causing danger and obstruction to the public and in consequence of his rash and negligent conduct, the complainant and his friend Dheeraj struck their motorcycle against his car, thereby suffering grievous hurt.
34. The onus to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt is upon the prosecution. The prosecution has examined the complainant PW-1 who has categorically deposed that on 02.10.2014, while he was going on his motorcycle with his friend Dheeraj Raghav on the driver's seat, an Ambassador car bearing no. DL-9CQ-0365 was parked on the wrong side at Minto Road. Their motorcycle hit the ambassador car. Dheeraj Raghav failed to control the motorcycle since it was parked wrongly and both of them fell down. They sustained injuries. PCR officials reached at the spot and they were taken to the hospital. The complainant identified the accused in the State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 21/26 court. The complainant has also correctly identified the offending vehicle ie., the ambassador car. In his cross-examiation, he has explicitly denied the suggestion that he and PW-2 were stopped by the CISF official for the purpose of checking. He also denied any negligence on the part of PW-2 Dheeraj Raghav.
35. The prosecution has then examined Dheeraj Raghav as PW-2. He has corroborated the statement of complainant and has correctly identified the accused and the offending vehicle in the court. In his cross-examination, he has denied that he was under the influence of alcohol. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that on account of second October, the checking of vehicles was going on for security purpose at the spot. However, he has denied that the police officials had tried to stop him for the purpose of checking.
36. The version of prosecution is also corroborated by the testitmony of PW-3 ASI Jagdish Prasad who was one of the eye witnesses in this case. He has categorically stated that on 02.10.2014, he was posted as Incharge PCR, Central Zone. On the alleged day of incident, at about 9.30 am, he along with his staff and PCR vehicle was standing at the point near Red Light, Minto Road. One Ambassador car bearing NO. DL-9CQ-0365 came from New Delhi Railway Station side, the driver of said car parked it just near the Red Light after crossing the same. The driver got down from the car and started talking on mobile phone. No indicator was on and no other safety measure was taken by the driver while parking the car. Two persons on a motorcyle bearing State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 22/26 no.DL-6SQ-4492 came from Cannought Place side and after crossing the Red Light, their motorcycle collided with the parked car. Consequently, both of them fell down and sustained injuries. The injured were taken to JPN hospital and were medically examined. The name of the driver of the offended vehicle was revealed as Dheeraj Raghav and the name of the pillion rider was revealed as Rohit. The witness has correctly identified the offended and offending vehicle as well as the accused in the court. In his cross-examination, he has also denied the suggestion about the checking taking place by CRPF due to 2nd October. He has also explicitly denied any negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider.
37. Prosecution has also examined the mechanical inspector ASI Devender Kumar who has exhibited the mechanical inspection reports of offended and offending vehicle (Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW4/B). As per the report, fresh damages have been reported on the offended vehicle. Its left side leg guard was found damaged, three left side rear shifter lever and two left side body and handle grip end were scratched. The left side of indicator light was also damaged. As per the mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle, fresh damages were also reported on the same. Its front bumper, left side corner and three left side H.L. Ring was found dented. Hence, the damages on the vehicles also fortifies the claims of the prosecution about the alleged accident.
38. The prosecution has examined PW-10 Dr. Anuradha who has exhibited the MLC reports as Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B. As per State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 23/26 the report, PW-2 Dheeraj had suffered fracture of distel third of shaft of left tibia. PW-1 Rohit had suffered a fracture of mid shaft of left tibia. The nature of injuries was opined as grievous.
39. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that PW-2 was under the influence of alcohol and since the CRPF / CISF checking was taking place at the incident spot, the motorcycle rider lost his balance due to which PW-1 and PW-2 suffered grievous injuries. However, as already stated, neither the injured have testified to the presence of any check post which allegedly stopped them, nor has PW-3 ASI Jagdish Prasad mentioned about the same in his testimony. Moreover, even the site plan Ex.PW9/B does not contain any indication of the presence of such check post. Further, the accused has also not led any documentary proof to support his allegations. PW-2 was not subjected to any tests indicating that he was intoxicated. Hence, without any documentary proof, it cannot be assumed that he was intoxicated. Moreover, PW-3 has explicitly stated in his cross-examination that no negligent conduct can be attributed on the part of the motorcycle rider. Hence, this arguments of defence counsel does not hold good. In fact, his argument leads to a natural deduction that the accused was present at the spot on the day of the alleged accident.
40. As far as the rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is concerned, the fact that the car was parked just near the Red Light is ipso facto testament of the negligent conduct of the driver. The prosecution has also exhibited the muster roll register State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 24/26 Ex.PW8/C which has been exhibited by Sh. Jai Prakash, owner of the ambassador car. He has explicitly stated in his examination-in- chief that accused Manoj was a driver of a company and the driver of the offending vehicle on the day of incident. As per Ex.PW8/C, accused Manoj was on duty and stated to have been driving the offending vehicle. His presence at the spot has been duly proved by the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. The presence of ambassador car at the place of incident has also been duly proved by the prosecution witness.
41. It was also argued by the LD. Defence counsel, that there were no independent witnesses to the alleged crime. However, this court is of the opinion that as per the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 52 at this juncture :
"It is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distruct. It si time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actioins and the documents made by the poice. At any rate the Courts cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a presumption of law, the presumtion would be the other way round. The official acts of the police have been regularly performed is the wise pricinple of presumption and recognised even by the legislature"
42. Moreover, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 who injured witnesses is also unrebutted and corroborative of the testimonies given by the police witnesses.
43. The chain of circumstances is complete and the identity of the accused has been duly established. Merely because no public State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 25/26 witness has been examined, it shall not be fatal to the story of the prosecution.
44. In view of the above discussion, it has been established beyong reasonable doubt that (1) it was on account of the alleged accident caused by the accused that the complainant and PW-2 Dheeraj Raghav were grievously injured (2) It was the accused who had parked the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on the day of the crime due to which they suffered grivous injuries and (3) the offending vehicle was parked at a public place in a position that was likely to cause danger / obstruction and undue inconvenience to the passengers. Hence, the court deems it fit to convict the accused Manoj Kumar u/s 338 IPC and 122/177 MV Act.
Announced in the open court Digitally
signed by
SAYESHA
SAYESHA CHADHA
CHADHA Date:
today. 2025.05.16
17:20:53
+0530
(SAYESHA CHADHA)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-08, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
[This judgment contains 26 pages and each page bears the initials of undersigned and the last page bears the complete sign of undersigned.] State Vs. Manoj Kumar FIR No. 283/14 PS Kamla Market 26/26