Delhi District Court
State vs Farukh on 27 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRIGYA GUPTA, ACMM
NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CR Case No: 1560/2016
STATE Vs. Farukh
FIR No: 79/2016
PS: Sonia Vihar
1. FIR No. of the case : 79/2016
2. Date of commission of offence : 25/02/2016
3. Date of institution of the case : 27/05/2016
4. Name of the complainant : Yogender Singh
5. Name of accused & address : Farukh
S/o Kallu
R/o Village Mewali,
P.S Nuh, District
Mewat, Haryana.
6. Offence charged with : U/s 279/337/304A
IPC
7. Plea of the accused : : Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of final arguments : 27/02/2024
9. Final Order : Acquitted
10. Date of Judgment : 27/02/2024
JUDGMENT:
State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 1/10
1. Prosecution has alleged that on 25/02/2016, at about 12.00 a.m, at Wazirabad Road, Near Hanuman Mandir, Wazirabad Pull, within the jurisdiction of PS Sonia Vihar, accused was found driving Dumper bearing No. HR74A3582 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and liberty. Further, on the said date, time and place while driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner, accused struck against one motorcycle bearing no. DL8SBV7133 and due to the said accident, riders of the said motorcycle namely Yogender and Punit fell on the road, due to which Yogender sustained simple injuries while the injured Punit had expired. Thus, accused, as per prosecution had committed offences U/s 279/337/304A IPC. FIR was registered by police for the said offences and accused was arrested and released on police bail. Chargesheet was filed after investigation.
2. Accused appeared before this Court and after compliance under Section 207 Cr.P.C, charge U/s 279/337/304A IPC was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
:
3. To discharge its onus, prosecution examined 03 State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 2/10 witnesses. A brief summary of prosecution evidence is as follows: Sr.No. Witness name Witness Remarks no.
1. Yogender PW1 He is the eye witness and Singh identified the deadbody. He deposed that on 24/02/2016, he was returning with his uncle namely Bhopender Singh from Jagatpuri Colony, Wazirabad and going to his house at Village Barola, Noida, U.P on his motorcycle bearing no.
DL3133. He did not remember the complete registration number. At about 12.00 midnight, when he reached near Hanuman Mandir, Sonia Vihar, where there was a traffic jam, one dumper came from the back side bearing registration no. HR74A3582 and hit his motorcycle from behind. His son fell down on the road and got crushed under the right rear wheel of the dumper. He fell on the left side and became unconscious. After some time, he gained consciousness and someone made 100 number call. Ambulance came there and took him and his son to State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 3/10 GTB Hospital where his son was declared dead. He had not seen the driver of the offending dumper as the driver of the said dumper fled from the spot. He was crossexamined by Ld. APP and he submitted that he cannot identify the accused as he fled from the spot. He also denied the other suggestions given by the Ld. APP.
In his evidence dated 16/02/2024, PW1 also deposed that he was struck in the traffic jam which was all around the road. The dumper came from behind at a speed of 2030 kms.
It was not possible to even tread at a speed of 2030 kms.
He also deposed that had the dumper been not negligent or had it been driven in controlled manner with proper care his son would have been saved.
2. SI Satish PW2 He is the 2nd IO of the present Kumar matter, who conducted investigation of the present case, prepared the documents, seized the case property and after completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet before the court.
He correctly identified the State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 4/10 accused in the Court.
3. ASI Pawan PW3 He is the first IO of the present Kumar case.
4. Prosecution has also relied upon the following documents: Sr. No. Items Exhibits
1. Original complaint Ex. PW1/A
2. Rukka Ex. PW2/A
3. Site plan of the incident Ex. PW2/B
4. Seizure memo of Dumper No. HR74A Ex.PW2/D 3582
5. Seizure memo of Motorcycle No. Ex. PW2/C DL8SBY7133
6. Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act and reply of the Ex. PW2/E & Ex.
same PW2/F
7. Arrest memo of accused Ex. PW2/G
8. Disclosure statement of accused MarkZ
9. Personal search memo of accused Ex.PW2/H
10. Seizure memo of document of vehicle No. Ex. PW2/I HR74A3582
11. Print National Permit Authorization, MarkP (colly) Transport Department, Haryana
12. Seizure memo of Driving Licence Ex. PW2/J State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 5/10 Request for vehicle mechanical inspection Ex. PW2/K of accidental vehicle (motorcycle).
13. Request for vehicle mechanical inspection Ex. PW2/L of accidental vehicle (Dumper).
14. Receipt qua handing over of deadbody Ex. PW2/O
15. Statements regarding identification of Ex. PW2/M deadbody & Ex.
PW2/N
16. Photographs Ex. P1 (colly)
17. Disclosure statement of accused MarkZ Following documents were admitted by the accused vide his statement U/s 294 Cr.P.C
1. Copy of FIR (without admitting the Ex. A1 contents therein)
2. DD No. 3B dated 25.02.2016. Ex. A2
3. DD No. 2 dated 25.02.2016. Ex. A3
4. Notice U/s 133 MV Act served upon Ex. A4 owner of vehicle bearing No. HR74A 3582 alongwith reply.
5. Mechanical inspection report of vehicle Ex. A5 No. DL8SBV7133.
6. Mechanical inspection report of vehicle Ex. A6 No. HR74A 3582.
State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 6/10
7. Superdarinama of vehicle No. DL8SBV Ex. A7 7133.
8. Superdarinama of vehicle No. HR74A Ex. A8 3582.
9. Dead body handing over memo. Ex.A9
10. Postmortem report No. 260/16 of deceased Ex. A10 (colly) Puneet alongwith request for postmortem and death report.
11. Dead body identification statement. Ex. A11.
12. MLC bearing No. 729/2016 of Puneet. Ex. A12
13. Death certificate alongwith emergency Ex. A13 (colly) registration card qua Puneet.
14. MLC bearing No. 709/16 of Yogender. Ex. A14.
15. 16 photographs of the spot. Ex. A15 (colly)
16. 9 photographs of motorcycle No. Ex. A16 (colly) DL8SBV 7133.
17. 11 photographs of truck bearing No. Ex. A17 (colly) HR74A3582.
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
6. Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and he submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case.
State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 7/10 All the alleged documents pertaining in the present case were prepared in the concerned PS and this false case has been foisted upon him by the police.
7. I have heard final arguments advanced by Sh. Abhishek Pandey, Ld. APP for the State & Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
8. As per prosecution's story the accused herein was driving Dumper bearing No. HR74A3582 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against one motorcycle bearing no. DL8SBV7133 and due to the said accident, riders of the said motorcycle namely Yogender and Punit fell on the road due to which Yogender sustained simple injuries while injured Punit had expired and thus, accused was put to trial for offences made punishable U/s 279/337/304A IPC.
9. For the offences made punishable U/s 279/337/304A IPC, it is necessary to see as to whether the accused herein was driving the alleged Dumper in question in a rash or negligent manner. Rashness or negligence is understood to mean when due care or precaution is not taken by the person driving the vehicle or the accused acts in a reckless manner with little regard to the safety of others.
State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 8/10
10. To prove the said allegations, eye witness Yogendar Singh (PW1) stepped in the witness box but he has failed to identify the accused and specifically deposed that he had not seen the driver of the offending vehicle. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. He was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State but still he did not support the prosecu tion's case. In crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, PW1 deposed that he cannot identify the accused as the accused had fled from the spot. He denied the other suggestions given by the Ld. APP for the State.
11. There is no other eye witnesses in the present case. No evidence is there on record to prove that it was the accused who was driving the offending vehicle on the date of the inci dent. In the absence of any such evidence, the identity of the ac cused could not be established.
It is pertinent to highlight that PW1 Yogendar Singh, who is alleged to be the eye witness of the accident in question, deposed that he had not seen the driver of the offending dumper as driver of the said dumper fled from the spot. There is no other eye witnesses of the accident. PW2 and PW3 are the IOs of the present case, who conducted investigation in the present matter. They are formal witnesses and not the eye witnesses. Their State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 9/10 testimony cannot be made the basis to convict the accused of the offences charged against him. Since his identity could not be established, their testimony being formal in nature, the accused cannot be presumed to be guilty of offences in absence of sufficient evidence of the eye witnesses.
12. In light of discussion aforesaid, prosecution has failed to prove its case. Accordingly, accused Farukh is honourably entitled to be acquitted in this case for the offences made punishable U/s 279/337/304A IPC, giving him benefit of doubt. It is ordered accordingly.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (PRIGYA GUPTA) On 27/02/2024 ACMM (NORTH EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Farukh FIR No. 79/2016 P.S Sonia Vihar Page no. 10/10