Delhi District Court
Vipin Kumar vs State on 15 February, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEELOFER ABIDA PERVEEN:
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : (CENTRAL DISTRICT):
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
CNR No.DLCT01-005347-2019
Crl. Revision No. 252/2019
In the matter of:
Vipin Kumar
S/o Sh. Manohar Lal,
R/o 1-103 Ashok Vihar,
Phase-I, New Delhi-110052. .....Petitioner
Versus
State .....Respondent
Date of Institution: 23.04.2019
Date of Judgment: 15.02.2021
JUDGMENT
This order decides the present revision petition U/S 397/401 Cr.P.C. filed against the order passed by Sh. Bhupinder Singh, Ld. ACMM-01 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi framing notice of accusation dated 19.01.2019 in Criminal Case No. 300330/2016 titled as State Versus Vipin Kumar bearing FIR No.198/10, PS Pahar Ganj, Delhi.
1. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that FIR No.198/2010 dated 06.08.2010 was registered initially under Section 279/337 IPC C. R. No.252/2019 page1 and subsequently Sections 304A/201 IPC and Sections 130/177, 146/196 of M. V. Act have been added thereto, and challan is presented by the IO under the same sections on the basis of a biased investigation indulging in manipulation of record. That the report submitted and conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer are far from truth, contrary to documents collected, based on conjectures, surmises, imagination, prejudice of the investigating officer and the sympathy for the victim of the accident and also an example of over-enthusiasm to solve a case. That the investigating officer has not carried out the investigation in relation to the present case in terms of guidelines as contained in the Police Manual and the directions of the Delhi high Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court for investigation of accident claim cases. That the investigating officer got the FIR registered without stating therein the true facts on account of non-application of mind U/S 270/337 of the IPC. That the recitals in the FIR lend support to the claim of the petitioner. That the MLC of the injured was prepared at Lady Hardinge Medical College, where he was taken by an ASI of PCR, he undisputedly was not a eyewitness to the occurrence. In the subsequent MLC at Trauma Centre where the deceased was admitted by one Sh. Mukesh, it is stated "PT WAS PEDESTRIAN, HIT BY 2 WHEELER DETAILS NOT AVAILABLE". That because the investigating officer having registered a case U/S 279/337 of IPC, on the facts and documents available to it at that point of time, C. R. No.252/2019 page2 instead of towing the line that it was a case of hit and run by a two wheeler, later on, planted a motor car No. DL-4C-1639 (Maruti-800), (non-existent) as vehicle causing the accident, on the statement of planted eyewitness. That the respondent was neither the driver nor the owner of the Car No. DL-4C-1639 allegedly claimed to be involved in the accident (non-existent vehicle). That the respondent lodged a written complaint against the investigating officer to the Commissioner of Police vide communication dated 21.02.2010 with a copy of the DCP Pahar Ganj, Delhi. That the refusal of TIP is not conclusive proof of guilt, as the person who had to identify had already met the accused a number of times, hence TIP would be nothing more than a formality. That the Ld. Magistrate has not considered the fact that the documents which are being relied upon are not defence documents, but the same are either documents put forward by the prosecution or are documents of unimpeachable character. That the claim filed by the family of the deceased has been dismissed vide Order dated 22.07.2016 passed by Sh. Vinay Singhal, the then Ld. PO MACT -02, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Ld. App has submitted that there is no error or infirmity in the summoning order which is passed on the basis of statement of the eye witness.
C. R. No.252/2019 page3
3. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the accused and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the record.
4. The present revision is directed against the order framing the notice of accusation dated 19.01.2019. It emerges that FIR bearing No.198 was registered on 06.08.2010 at PS Pahar Ganj, Central Delhi in respect of a Motor Vehicular accident at Jhandewalan Chowk near Rani Laxmi Bai Statute. Information was received at PS Pahar Ganj vide DD No.16A assigned to HC Bansi Dhar. By the time, the police reached at the spot but the injured had already been removed in PCR Van to LHMC Hospital where vide MLC No.25201 dated 06.08.2010 at 1:20 PM, H/O RTA, the deceased then in an injured state was examined with the CLW (P) on the scalp and referred to neurosurgery department at RML Hospital. Injured was not found at RML Hospital but was traced under treatment at Jai Prakash Narain Apex Trauma Centre. As per medical record pertaining to Jai Prakash Narain Apex Trauma Centre, injured was admitted on 07.8.2010 at post midnight at 0025 Hours and died on 12.08.2010 at 7:30 AM. As per the post-mortem report, cause of death is opined as "antemortem cranio cerebral produced by blunt force impact".
5. Ld. Counsel for the accused-appellant has relied upon the endorsement in the MLC No.221595 of Jai Prakash Narain Apex C. R. No.252/2019 page4 Trauma Centre that "Patient was pedestrian hit by two wheeler details not available". ASI Jai Prakash who removed the injured from the spot to the hospital in a PCR Van, in his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. stated that injured was found lying in an injured condition on the footpath and was bleeding from the head who gave his name as Prem son of Ganga Ram and that one person by the name of Balram @ Billu was also accompanying him when he was hit by white colour vehicle No.DL-4C-1639. Balram @ Billu was also cited as a witness and in his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. he is alleged to have stated that on 06.08.2010 at around 12 Night, he was resting at Bus Stop Desh Bandhu Gupta Road near Sarvodya Vidhyalaya when he saw his relative Prem around 12:45 PM walking along the Rani Jhansi Road and he told him that he is going for booking of gas. When Prem went for hardly 8-10 steps, he saw Van No. DL 4C 1639 white colour hit him from behind and thereafter fled away from the spot.
6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards the contradictions in the inferences emerging from the documentary material and eye witness accounts. At the stage of framing of notice of accusation, towards a prima facie test, it is only open for the Court to assess if there is sufficient material for proceeding against the accused. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to sift and weigh the evidence and to reject ocular C. R. No.252/2019 page5 account as contradicting the documentary material, questioned the credibility of the witnesses cited by the prosecution, stifling and stultifying the trial. It is only after receiving the evidence that the contradictions in the documentary and ocular account be appreciated and benefit thereof be accorded to the accused. In the wake of the statements of ASI Jai Prakash and Balram @ Billu, it cannot be said that there was no material before the Ld. Trial Court to proceed against the accused for offences under Section 279/304A/201 IPC and 130/177, 146/196 M. V. Act.
7. In such facts and circumstances, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned. There present revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
8. Trial Court Record be returned with copy of Judgment. File of revision petition be consigned to record room Announced in open Court On this day 15th February 2022 (Neelofer Abida Perveen) Addl. Sessions Judge (Central) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi C. R. No.252/2019 page6