Delhi District Court
State vs . Sarjug on 2 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Sarjug
FIR No. 76/08
U/s : 279/337 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 30.05.2008
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 29.04.2014
Date of judgment : 02.05.2014
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 76/08
2.Date of the Commission : 24.01.2008
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Sarjug S/o Sh. Jetu Ram
: R/o Village Rodh Bihari, PO Ladoch, PS
: Jole, District Darbanga, Bihar
4.Name of the complainant : Digambar S/o Sh. Hiral Lal
: R/o H. No. 6/147, Dakshinpuri, New
: Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted u/s 279/337 IPC
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 1/20
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 24.01.2008 at about 11.15pm at M.B. Road Near Red Light, PVR Saket, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar accused Sarjug was found driving a vehicle i.e. Truck bearing No. HR-55-9331 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others and while driving the above said manner accused hit against Indica Car bearing no. DL-1YB-0201 from behind and due to impact of the hit the above said car was collided with two wheeler scooter bearing no. HR-51G-5336 and accused Sarjug thereby caused simple hurt to the complainant Digambar and Pawan Tehlani who was sitting at the rear seat of car at the time of accident and thus accused thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 279/337 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 76/08 under section 279/337 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 30.05.2008.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charge for the offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC was framed against the accused person namely Sarjug and read out to the said accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 18.05.2010.
Appreciation of Evidence
5. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused Sarjug, prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 2/20
6. PW-1 Sh. Shadi Lal being retired foreman DTC was examined on 08.12.2010 who is a formal witness and conducted the mechanical inspection of vehicle i.e. Tata Indica Car bearing No. DL-1YB-0201, Tata Truck bearing No. HR-55-9331 and scooter bearing no. HR-51G-5336 on the request of the IO and his detailed reports to this effect are Ex. PW-1/A , PW-1/B and PW-1/C all bearing his signature at point A respectively.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that in his opinion damage to the vehicles from all side can be caused even if the vehicles has hit other vehicle from behind. He voluntarily stated that after hitting it might hit other vehicle/things. He denied the suggestion that a false report has been prepared in connivance with the IO.
8. PW-2 Digamber being the complainant was examined on 13.02.2012 and deposed that he does not remember the day of incident but his car bearing No. DL-1YV-0201 was hit by the accused present in the court from his truck whose number he does not remember. He further deposed that he was waiting on a Chauraha in his Indica Car and a bus was standing in front of his vehicle. He further deposed that the truck came behind at a speed of 30-35 KMPH and hit against his car and at that time it was a Red Light.
9. On resiling from his earlier statement, this witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he stated that the date of incident could be 24.01.2008. He admitted that on the day of incident at about 11.15pm in the night they were waiting at M.B. Road, Red Light for Green Light Signal. He further admitted that the accused was coming in a Truck bearing no. HR-55-9331 in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the left side of his Indica Car which dashed against the scooter which was standing besides his car and the scooter driver fell down on the road. He further State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 3/20 admitted that his car got badly damaged which came beneath the bus as the collision was very strong. He further deposed that the accused present in the court left his truck on the spot and ran away from there. He further deposed that police came and took him to the Trauma Center. He further admitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused. His statement given to the police from point X to point X is Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the accused was arrested by the police by calling him to the PS and the arrest memo is Ex. PW-2/B bearing his signature at point A.
10. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that on the day of incident, he remained in his car and he was taken by public persons from his car. Later on, police came to the spot and took him to the hospital. He further admitted that on the day of incident, he went to his residence after receiving medical treatment from the hospital. He further stated that he does not remember how many papers were signed by him due to lapse of time. He further stated that police did not obtain his signature on his statement or any other paper during the investigation of the present case. He admitted that the place of incident is a very busy road and heavy traffic used to pass over there. He denied the suggestion that at the place where accident took place, he had to take left turn from there. He voluntarily stated that he had to go in front. He denied the suggestion that the accident took place due to his negligence as he had taken a turn from right to left and the accident occurred by overtaking the truck. He further deposed that police informed him the accused present in the court was driving the offending vehicle. He further stated that he did not see the accused at the spot while driving the truck.
11. PW-3 Pawan Tehlani being another injured was examined on State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 4/20 13.02.2012 and deposed that on 24.07.2008 he was coming on his Indica Car after finishing his work at E-Valueserve Dot Com, Private Ltd. at Gurgaon and at about 11.15pm he reached PVR Sake, M.B. Road, Red Light and his car was standing due to red light and he was waiting for the green signal. He further deposed that at that time some vehicle hit from the back side and when he regained consciousness he found that he was enclosed between the two seats and then he pushed the front seat forward and he came out and saw a truck behind his car. He further deposed that he was bleeding profusely and he did not see the accused at the spot. He further deposed that PCR van came and took him to the hospital where he was got medically examined by doctor. He further stated that the car also hit against the scooter due to the impact of hitting by the truck. He further deposed that he does not remember the number of the truck but the driver had ran away from the spot.
12. This witness was asked some leading questions by Ld. APP for State wherein he stated that the accused had caused due to the negligence of the truck driver bearing no. HR-55-9331 who ran away from the spot after committing the accident. His statement to this effect was recorded by the police.
13. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he stated that they were starting from Gurgaon at about 10.30pm and the place of accident is near about 18 Km from the place of his work. He admitted that first of all he came to know regarding the accident when he was struck between the two seats of his car. He further stated that police came at the spot within 10 minutes and he was immediately removed to the hospital. He further deposed that he does not remember whether his statement was recorded by the PCR police officials or concerned police station officials and he did not join the investigation after the day of accident.
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 5/20 He further stated that he was sleeping on the backseat of his Indica car but he can say that his car was waiting for the green signal and as it was a red light and at that time he got awake. He denied the suggestion that as he was sleep, he cannot say whether the accident was occurred due to the fault of Indica driver or some other vehicle. He also denied the suggestion that the Indica car driver tried to turn the vehicle from right to left and also tried to overtake the truck due to which the accident occurred. He admitted that he was not aware regarding the number of the offending vehicle.
14. PW-4 Geetesh Kumar being registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL-1YB-0201 was examined on 28.05.2012 and deposed that on 25.07.2008 on receipt of information regarding the accident of his vehicle bearing No. DL-1YB-0201 make of Indica car, he went to the spot of accident i.e. M.B. Road Near PVR Saket, New Delhi where police officials met and told that his driver Digamber has been removed to hospital and there the photographs of his aforesaid damaged vehicle and other vehicles, which were damaged were clicked and the same vehicle were taken into possession by the police. His car was totally damaged during the accident. The seizure memo of his car was prepared by the police vide Ex. PW-4/A. The photographs are Mark A colly. He further deposed that he got his vehicle released on superdari which he had not brought in the court but the photographs of India is Ex. PW-4/B.
15. This witness was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity given.
16. PW-5 Sh. Prashant Kunawat being public witness was examined on 22.07.2013 and deposed that on 24.01.2008 they had boarded a cab from their office and were waiting at the red light on M. B. Road at Saket Red Light. He further deposed that when their cab was stationary, a State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 6/20 truck bearing No. HR-55-9331 (he had refreshed his memory from the documents), hit their cab from behind. He further deposed that he got down and one of his colleague namely Pawan had got struck between the rear seat and the boot. He further deposed that he had received 3/4 stitches on his forehead. He further deposed that he did not receive any injury and nobody else received injuries. He further deposed that he did not see who was driving the truck as by the time, he got down of the cab, the driver had apparently run away. Thereafter, he called the PCR on 100 number and the PCR came after 10/15 minutes of the call and all of them were taken to AIIMS Trauma Center by PCR. He further deposed that no statements were recorded by the police in his presence. He further deposed that he does not remember whether his statement was recorded but he had signed some documents, which he does not remember.
17. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that they were removed from spot to Trauma Centre by the PCR. Thereafter, they went to their residence after getting treatment of his colleague Pawan. He further admitted that thereafter, he did not contact the police regarding the above said matter and he refreshed his memory before deposing. He further deposed that he does not remember whether it was raining on the date of the accident or that the road was slippery on account of rain. He further admitted that when the accident occurred, he was sitting in the cab and at that time, he did not know who had hit their cab. He further deposed that when he got out of the cab, he saw that a truck had hit the cab and he had not noted down any number of the truck. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the fault of their cab driver.
18. PW-6 HC Pradeep Kumar being IO was examined on State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 7/20 12.02.2014 and deposed that on 24.01.2008 he was posted as HC at PP Saket and on that day he had received DD no. 35-A regarding accident and reached at the spot i.e. M.B. Road red light near PVR Saket Cinema along with Ct. Abhay Raj where he found a scooter bearing registration no. HR-51G-5336 and Indica car bearing no. DL-1YB-0201 and truck bearing no. HR-55-9331 standing in accidental condition at the spot. He further deposed that no eye witness was found at the spot and he came to know through DD no. 38 that the injured has already been shifted at AIIMS Trauma Center. He further deposed that he left Ct. Sanjay at the spot and he along with Ct. Abhay Raj reached at AIIMS where he collected MLC of injured Digambar and Pawan. He further deposed that he had recorded the statement of Digambar in the hospital and he had endorsed the said statement and got registered present case through Ct. Abhay Raj. His endorsement is Ex. PW-6/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he returned back at the spot with injured and he had recorded the statement of another injured Mahender at the spot and he prepared site plan at the instance of Mahender. The site plan is Ex. PW-6/B bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that Ct. Abhay Raj returned back at the spot after registration of the case and he seized all three vehicles vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-4/A, PW-6/C and PW-6/D. He further deposed that he deposited the case properties in the malkhana and he served a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to the owner of the truck and received reply thereon. The said reply is Ex. PW-6/E bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that the owner of the truck himself produced the accused in the police post and disclosed that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of incident. In the meantime, injured Digambar reached at police post who had identified the accused there. He further deposed that he had arrested the accused (correctly State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 8/20 identified by the witness) and conducted his personal search vide memos already Ex. PW-2/B and PW-6/F bearing his signatures at point A respectively. He further deposed that he had seized DL of the accused vide memo Ex. PW6/G bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses and he had got conducted mechanical inspection of all three vehicles vide memos already Ex. PW-1/A, B and C all bearing his signatures at point B. He further deposed that he had clicked five photographs at the spot. Those photographs are collectively Ex. P-2 to P-5 and after seeing the photographs witness correctly identified the vehicles i.e. Truck, Indica Car and scooter.
19. This witness was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity given.
20. PW-7 HC Abhay Raj was examined on 12.02.2014 and deposed that on 24.01.2008 he was posted as Ct. at PP Saket and on that day IO HC Pradeep had received DD no. 35-A regarding accident and reached at the spot i.e. M.B. Road red light near PVR Saket Cinema along with him where IO found a scooter bearing registration no. HR-51G-5336 and Indica car bearing no. DL-1YB-0201 and truck bearing no. HR-55-9331 standing in accidental condition at the spot. He further deposed that no eye witness was found at the spot and IO came to know through DD no. 38 that the injured has already been shifted at AIIMS Trauma Center and IO left Ct. Sanjay at the spot and he along with HC pradeep reached at AIIMS where IO collected MLC of injured Digambar and Pawan. He further deposed that IO had recorded the statement of Digambar in the hospital and IO had endorsed the said statement and got registered present case through him. In the meantime, he returned back at the spot after registration of the case. He further deposed that IO seized all three vehicles vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-4/A, State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 9/20 PW-6/C and PW-6/D bearing his signature at point B respectively. He further deposed that on 25.01.2008 IO had arrested the accused Sarjug in his presence and conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex. PW-2/B and PW-6/F both bearing his signatures at point C respectively. He further identified the accused present in the court. He further deposed that IO had seized DL of the accused vide memo already Ex. PW6/G bearing his signatures at point B.
21. This witness was not cross examined by accused despite opportunity given.
22. Further, MLC bearing no. 10305, 10306 which are Ex. PW-7 and DD entry no. 38 and 38 dated 24.01.2008 which are Ex. PW-9 and FIR bearing no. 76/08 which is Ex. PW-10 have not been disputed by the accused as he has admitted the said documents on 10.12.2013 in his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, same were dispensed with being admitted u/s 294 Cr.P.C.
23. As all witnesses were examined by the prosecution, PE was ordered to be closed on 12.02.2014. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 04.03.2014 in which he stated that he does not want to lead any defence evidence.
24. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence counsel. Heard. Considered.
Reasons for Decision
28. In the present matter prosecution has examined seven witnesses in total to prove its allegations qua accused that on the date and time as earlier mentioned the accused was Sarjug was driving his Truck bearing No. State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 10/20 HR-55-9331 on the public way in a rash and negligent manner hit against Indica Car bearing no. DL-1YB-0201 due to which the said car was collided with two wheeler scooter bearing no. HR-51G-5336 and thereby causing simple injuries to the person who was driving the Indica Car being complainant Digambar and another person Pawan Tehlani who was sitting on the rear seat of car and thereby committing offences punishable u/s 279/337 IPC.
29. Further, before appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to state the essential ingredients of section 279 IPC. Same are as follows:
(1)That the accident actually took place. (2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
(3)That the accused was the person who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time.
The words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
Quoting from the article "Negligence, Mens Rea and Criminal Responsibility" by H.L.A.Hart in Punishment and Responsibility the dictionary further goes on to explain the difference between an act done inadvertently and an act done negligently.
"[A] careful consideration is needed of the difference between the meaning of the expression like 'inadvertently' and 'while his mind was a blank' on the one hand, and 'negligently' on the other hand. In ordinary English, and also in Lawyer's English, when harm has resulted from someone's negligence, if we say of that person that he has acted negligently we are not thereby merely State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 11/20 describing the frame of mind in which he acted. 'He negligently broke a saucer' is not the same kind of expression as 'he inadvertently broke a saucer'. The point of adverb 'inadvertently' is merely to inform us of the agent's psychological state, whereas if we say 'He broke it negligently' we are not merely adding to this an element of blame or reproach, but something quite specific, viz. we are referring to the fact that the agent failed to comply with a standard of conduct with which any ordinary reasonable man could and would have complied: a standard requiring him to take precautions against harm. The word 'negligently', both in legal and non legal contexts, makes an essential reference to an omission to do what is thus required: it is not a flatly descriptive psychological expression like 'his mind was a blank'."
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines 'Rash'as doing something that may not be sensible without first thinking about the possible results.
Elaborating further, in State of H.P. v. Piar Chand, Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2003, decided on 2.6.2003, Himachal Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the meaning of the expression " rashness " and " negligence "
held as follows :
"18. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injury and without knowl- edge that injury would probably be caused. Therefore, to incur criminal liability, the act must be done with rashness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negli- gence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exer- cise reasonable care and proper precaution imperative to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a individual."
8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J. in these words :
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 12/20 "Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In Re : Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. HCR 119)".
30. Prosecution has examined Sh. Digamber as PW-2 who deposed that he does not remember the day of incident but his car bearing No. DL-1YV-0201 was hit by the accused present in the court by his truck while he was waiting on the Chauraha in the Indica Car. He further deposed that the said truck came from behind at a speed of 30-35 KMPH and hit against his car when the light was Red. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for State wherein he admitted the fact that date of incident could be 24.01.2008 at about 11.15pm. He further admitted the fact that he was at M.B. Road, Red Light waiting for the signal to turn green and the accused while driving Truck bearing no. HR-55-9331 in a rash and negligent manner hit on the left side of the Indica Car. He further admitted that after hitting, his car dashed against the scooter which was standing besides his car and the scooter driver also fell down on the road. He further admitted that his car was badly damaged and it came beneath the bus and the collision was very strong. He further admitted that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused present in the court and he proved his State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 13/20 statement Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signature at point A and identified the accused. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused and he admitted that on the day of incident, he remained in his car and was taken by public persons from his car. Further, he denied the suggestion that the accident took place on account of his negligence and not on account of negligence of the truck driver.
31. Next witness examined by the prosecution is Pawan Tehlani being injured as PW-3 who deposed that on 24.07.2008 at about 11.15pm when he reached PVR Sake, M.B. Road, Red Light, his car was hit by the accused. He further deposed that when he regained consciousness, he found himself between two seats. He further deposed that he was bleeding profusely and he did not see the accused at the spot. He further stated that the car also hit against the scooter. This witness was asked some leading questions by Ld. APP for State and he stated that the the accident occurred due to the negligence of the truck driver bearing no. HR-55-9331 who ran away from the spot after causing the accident. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel and he stated that he was sleeping on the backseat of his Indica car and the car was waiting for the signal to turn green. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the fault of Indica driver or some other vehicle. He also denied the suggestion that on account of taking turn by his driver from right to left and on account of overtaking the accident occurred.
32. Apart from these two public witnesses prosecution has examined another witness namely Geetesh Kumar as PW-4 who is the registered owner of the Indica Car which was got released on superdari by him. He identified the photographs of the Indica car exhibited as Mark 'A' collectively.
He further proved seizure memo Ex. PW-4/A. State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 14/20
33. Another public witness examined by the prosecution is Prashant Kunwat as PW-5 who deposed that on 24.01.2008 when he was waiting at the red light on M. B. Road at Saket Red Light, his cab was hit by truck bearing No. HR-55-9331 from behind. He further deposed that his colleague namely Pawan had got struck between the rear seat and the boot and received 3/4 stitches on his forehead. He further deposed that no statements were recorded by the police in his presence. He further deposed that he does not remember whether his statement was recorded but he had signed some documents. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that they were removed from spot to Trauma Centre by the PCR. He further deposed that he does not remember whether it was raining on the date of the accident. He further admitted that when the accident occurred, he was sitting in the cab. He denied the suggestion that the accident occurred due to the fault of their cab driver.
34. Prosecution has examined PW-1 Shadi Lal as mechanical inspector who mechanically inspected all three vehicles involved in the incident of this case. His reports Ex. PW-1/A, PW-1/B and PW-1/C bear his signature at point A respectively. He was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel in which he deposed that damage to the vehicle from all sides can be caused even if the vehicle is hit by another vehicle from behind as he stated that after hitting one vehicle, the same vehicle may hit other vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared a false report in connivance with the IO.
35. Further, a perusal of the mechanical inspection reports clearly reveals that the vehicle of the injured being DL-1YB-0201 was damaged with the following damages:
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 15/20
● Rear and front wind screen broken.
● Left both doors damaged.
● Left side roof damaged.
● Rear Dickey and body damaged.
● Bonnet bent, rear left and right back, light broken.
● Rear left mudguard damaged.
36. Apart from mechanical inspection report, there are photograph of offending truck bearing No. HC-55-9331 which have been exhibited as P-1 collectively along with the photographs of the damaged car which has been clearly hit from behind by the said truck which resulted into the damages as above mentioned in the car. A perusal of the photographs further reveals that the car is tourist vehicle as the number plate bears yellow colour. A clear look at one of the photograph clearly shows that the number of the Indica Car is 0201 and the same is bearing a taxi number. It further lends credence to the version of the witnesses that they were in a cab when the incident took place and fact that they were hit from behind by truck.
37. Apart from this report there is another report which is Ex. PW-1/C which is the mechanical inspection report of Truck bearing no. HR-55-9331 which mentions damages to be as follows:
● Right front Bumper broken.
● Both Head Light broken.
● Front wind screen broken.
38. Further there is another mechanical inspection report Ex. PW-1/B of Scooter bearing no. HR-51G-5336 which refers to the following damages:
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 16/20
● Chassis broken.
● Head light broken.
● Staring handle broken.
● Front mudguard damaged.
● Front both indicator broken.
39. Perusal of the damages as per the mechanical inspection reports clearly reveal that the cab was hit from behind which resulted into damages on the front side of the offending vehicle.
40. PW-6 HC Pradeep Kumar who is IO was also examined. He has reiterated the sequence of events after he reached the spot on receiving DD No. 35-A regarding accident. He further deposed that he found the offending vehicle and other two vehicles being scooter and Tata Indica Car in accidental condition and thereafter proceeded with the investigation of the case which included registration of FIR, collection of MLC, preparation of site plan, seizure memo of the vehicles and deposition of the case property for Malkhana. He further served a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to the owner of the truck and the reply was received which is Ex. PW-6/E. He further deposed that the owner of the truck himself produced the accused and stated that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and the accused was also identified by injured. Thereafter, accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted, memos regarding the same were prepared, his DL was seized. Mechanical inspection of all three vehicles was got conducted and the photographs of the spot were taken. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for accused despite opportunity given.
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 17/20
41. Another witness corroborating the IO is HC Abhar Raj who has been examined as PW-7 who had accompanied the IO after receiving DD No. 35-A.
42. Apart from this witness, remaining formal witnesses for MLC, DD No. 35 and 38 and FIR bearing No. 76/08 were not examined and these documents were admitted by accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Hence, formal proof of the same was dispensed with. In "Shabbir Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan" (FB) (1996 Cr.L.J. 1015) it has been held that :
"If the genuineness of any document produced by the prosecution or the accused is admitted by opposite party, when called upon to do so under sub-setion (3) of Section 294 of the Code, it can be read by the court as a substantive piece of evidence for deciding the issue pending before it with its probative value being the same as it would have had it had been proved by the party concerned on its genuineness having disputed by the opposite party when called upon to do so under sub-section (1) of Section 294 of the Code".
Further in "Boraiah @ Shekar Vs State" [2003(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 160] it has been held that :
"Section 294 Cr.P.C. dispenses with proof of every document when it becomes formal on its genuineness not being disputed. Sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr.P.C. covers postmortem reports and every other document of which genuineness is not disputed. Once the requirements of Section 294 are fulfilled, there could be no difficulty in treating such document as substantive evidence in the case. In fact after indication of no dispute as to the genuineness of a document, proof of document is reduced to a sheer empty formality.
Such a document may be read in evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294. Neither the signature State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 18/20 nor the correctness of its contents need be proved by the prosecution or the accused by examining its signatory as it is admitted to be true or correct. The phrase 'read in evidence' means read as substantive evidence, which is the evidence adduced to prove a fact in issue as opposed to the evidence used to discredit a witness or to corroborate his testimony".
Also in "Akhtar Vs State of Uttranchal" [SC 2009(2) AICLR745] it has been held that :
"If the accused had admitted the injury reports and postmortem reports under Section 294 Cr.P.C. He cannot later contend that the said documents cannot be read into substantial evidence due to non- examination of doctors, and the said document shall be read as valid and substantive evidence under Section 294 Cr.P.C."
43. Thus, it is clear from the entire evidence on record including the documents/testimonies of the various witnesses recorded that the accused was driving the offending vehicle being Truck bearing no. HR-55-9331 and was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner otherwise there was no question of the Indica Car being so badly damaged which is apparent from the photographs. The impact was such that the Indica Car after being hit from behind also hit another Scooter bearing no. HR-51G-5336. The photographs clearly show that the car was badly Mangled. Fortunately, injuries being simple in nature were caused to the occupants of the Indica Car even though the condition of the car reflects that grievous injuries could have been caused.
44. Be that as it may, the guilt of the accused has been clearly proved beyond a reasonable doubt and hence, he is required to be convicted for the offence u/s 279/337 IPC. Accused Sarjug is accordingly, convicted for offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC.
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 19/20 Arguments on the point of sentence heard. Considered. Be listed for orders on sentence at 4.00pm.
ANNOUNCED IN THE COURT (CHETNA SINGH) ON 02.05.2014 MM-02(SD)/02.05.2014
Certified that this judgment contains 20 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM-02(SD)/02.05.2014
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 20/20
STATE Vs. Sarjug
FIR No. 76/08
U/s : 279/337 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
02.05.2014
At 4.00pm
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Convict Sarjug along with Ld. Counsel.
The accused has been convicted for the offence under section 279/337 IPC.
Arguments on sentence heard from both sides.
Ld. Counsel for the convict Sarjug has requested for lenient view to be taken against him and further submitted that convict is the sole bread earner of his family. He further requests for releasing the convict on probation.
Ld. APP for the State, on the other hand, has requested to award severe punishment to the convict considering the allegations against him.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as put forth, the nature and gravity of offence committed and the fact that the accused has caused simple hurt to the complainant Digambar and Pawan Tehlani on account of his rash and negligent driving, no benefit of probation is State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 21/20 warranted and he is sentenced as follows:
2
1. SI for six months for offence U/s 279 IPC.
2. SI for six months for offence U/s 337 IPC.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
At this stage, an application U/s 389 Cr. PC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail till filing of appeal has been filed on behalf of convict Sarjug.
On account of reasons stated, convict Sarjug is admitted to bail on furnishing personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000/ till 30 days, for allowing him to prefer appeal against this conviction.
Personal bonds furnished. Same is accepted till 12.05.2014 at 12.30pm with Bail Bond to be furnished as it is stated by Ld. Defence counsel that surety is not available today.
Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to convict free of cost.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM02:SD/Saket Courts
02.05.2014
State Vs Sarjug FIR No. 76/08 22/20