Delhi District Court
State vs Jakria on 30 October, 2023
DLSE010020712019
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH-EAST)-03,
SAKET COURTS: DELHI
Case Registration No. 138/2019
FIR No. 91/2018
Police Station: Sarita Vihar
Under Section: 279/186/353/333 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
JAKRIA
S/o Saddiq
R/o Village Mamolaka,
PS Hathin, Distt. Palwal,
Haryana.
Date of institution : 23.02.2019
Date of Reserving judgment : 16.10.2023
Date of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023
Decision : Accused acquitted u/s
279 IPC but convicted
U/s 186/353/333 IPC.
FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 1....of 24
For State : Sh. A.T. Ansari, Ld. Addl. PP for State.
For Defence: Sh. M.C. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts
1. As per charge sheet, on 12.04.2018 on receipt of DD No. 31A, ASI Virender alongwith HC Maharaj reached at the spot of incident (i.e. a spot situated on Road No. 13, on the carriageway from Kalindi Kunj towards Okhla underpass, opposite Kalindi Hospital, Jasola), where they came to know that the injured (traffic staff) was already removed to hospital by a PCR Van. On receipt of another DD No. 35A, ASI Virender reached at Trauma Center AIIMS Hospital and obtained MLC No. 50009006/18 pertaining to injured Ct. Pradeep Kumar. Injured Ct. Pardeep Kumar had been discharged from the hospital by then. ASI Virender returned to PS Sarita Vihar where he met the injured Ct. Pardeep Kumar. Ct. Pardeep Kumar made a statement to the effect that he is posted as a Constable in Sarita Vihar Traffic Circle. On 12.04.2018, he was deployed for duty between 08.00 AM to 10.00 AM. At around 05.45 PM on the said date, he was available at the spot of incident along with ASI Hari Kisan (ZO) and HC Pushpender for issuing 'challans'. There he noticed that FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 2....of 24 a car bearing registration no. HR 73A 1726 was being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. Consequently he 'signaled' the driver of said car to stop, but the driver of the said car hit him and fled towards Okhla underpass. He sustained an injury and fell down on the road. HC Pushpender then made a call at 100 number, whereafter the PCR Van removed him to Trauma Center Hospital for medical treatment. He sought action against the driver of the said car. The said statement of Ct. Pardeep Kumar was reduced into writing and an FIR No. 91/2018, PS Sarita Vihar was registered u/s 279/337. Routine investigation was carried out in the said FIR. During the course of investigation, a notice u/s 133 MV Act was served upon the owner of said car, who, on 14.05.2018, produced the accused Jakaria in the PS. Accused was formally arrested in the said FIR. Sections 186/353/333 IPC were invoked against the accused and subsequently the present charge sheet was filed in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned.
2. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as Section 333 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions.
CHARGE
3. Ld. Predecessor of this Court found a prima facie case against the accused and accordingly, charges for the offences FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 3....of 24 punishable u/s 279/186/353/333 IPC were framed against the accused on 31.08.2019, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In support of its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses in total.
5. PW-1 Sh. Tasnimuddin Siddiqui deposed that he is a government approved surveyor and loss assessor and working for more than 45 years independently in this field as a Motor Vehicle Mechanical Inspector. He deposed that on 14.05.2018, on the request of ASI Virender Singh, PS Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, he had inspected one Maruti Swift Dezire Car (Taxi) white colour bearing registration no. HR73 A1726 at the Police Station Sarita Vihar and submitted his detailed report Ex.PW1/A. During inspection, he found the following fresh damages were on the said car i.e. 1. Front Bumpher Scratched
2. Front Bonnet dry dented (unpainted). Both the above-said damages were caused most probably due to accidental impact. The brakes were in working order and the vehicle was fit for road test.
6. PW-2 Head Constable Pushpender deposed that on 12.04.2018, he was posted in traffic police alongwith ASI Hari Kishan, the ZO and constable Pradeep in the area of road no. 13, Kalindi Kunj, on the road which leads towards Okhla.
FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 4....of 24 There, they were checking the vehicles and issuing challans. At about 5:45 PM, one car bearing no. HR73-A-1726 came from the Kalindi Kunj side, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner. They signalled to stop the said car but the driver did not stop the car and he hit constable Pradeep and ran away with car towards Okhla underpass. Constable Pradeep fell down on the ground and he sustained injury. He made call at 100 number. PCR Van reached there which took Ct. Pradeep to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. Thereafter, they all went to police station Sarita Vihar and there the IO recorded statement of injured Ct. Pradeep. IO then came to the spot alongwith them and there he inspected the spot and prepared the site plan. They made search of accused but he could not be found. He deposed that since the offending vehicle was being driven in very high speed so he could not see the face of its driver, therefore, he could not identify the accused. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
7. PW-3 Muse Khan deposed that he is registered owner of HR73A1726 Swift Dzire. Accused Jakria was the driver on the said vehicle. He deposed that he had received notice u/s 133 MV Act from police official of PS Sarita Vihar. On 01.05.2018, he had given reply Ex.PW3/A on the notice, in which he had mentioned that on 12.04.2018 the said vehicle was being driven by accused Jakria. He had mentioned in the reply that he will FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 5....of 24 produce the vehicle on 04.05.2018. He deposed that on 05.05.2018, he had produced his above said vehicle in PS Sarita Vihar, which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. He had also handed over original RC, permit and insurance to the IO which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. He deposed that on 14.05.2018, he had produced accused Jakria before the IO at PS Sarita Vihar and proceedings were conducted by the IO against the accused. He had moved an application before the Court for the release of his vehicle, which was released to him on superdari by the order of Court. He had taken his vehicle from the malkhana of PS Sarita vihar. The Indemnity bond is Ex.PW3/D alongwith the copy of his Aadhar Card Ex.PA. The Panchnama report is Ex.PW3/E alongwith the copy of his Aadhar card is Ex.PB and PAN card is Ex.PC. He identified the accused before Court. He brought his car, which was parked on a road outside the Court. He alongwith Naib Court ASI Jagat Pal and accused had gone to see the vehicle and returned after seeing the same. Naib Court had taken the photographs of the car in his mobile phone. Same is shown to the Court. The car is Ex.P1. The photographs on the file are Ex.P2 to Ex.P6.
8. PW-4 ACP Gursewak Singh Dhillon deposed that on 05.09.2018, he was posted as ACP Traffic South-East District. As per the facts of the case, on 12.04.2018, Ct. Pradeep Kumar, ASI FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 6....of 24 Hari Kishan and HC Pushpender were posted at Sarita Vihar Traffic circle and were on duty for traffic regulation at Jasola T- point. They were present at about 5:45 p.m. at Road No. 13A in front of Kalindi Hospital, Jasola in the Kalindi Kunj to Okhla Carriage way. The accused had hit Ct. Pradeep Kumar by his car bearing No. HR-73A1726 due to which he received injuries. On the complaint of Ct. Pradeep, FIR No. 91/2018 was lodged at PS Sarita Vihar. The case file was put up before him by the IO for complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. He had gone through the file and documents. Thereafter, he had given complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW4/A against the accused Jakria for prosecution. The deployment on points / intersection from 12.04.2018 (March / April / May in SVC). The Duty Roaster is Ex.PW4/B.
9. PW-5 ASI Narbir Singh, Duty Officer deposed that on 12.04.2018 at about 18:50 p.m., an information was received from PCR Java-50 Control Room that SVR Road No. 13 near BTW HR 73A 1726 is gadi wale ne traffic ke constable ko hit kiya hai police chahiye. Ph. 9868904342. On the basis of said information GD No. 031A dated 12.04.2018 was recorded. The computerized copy of GD No. 031A is Ex.PW5/A. The information of said GD was given to ASI Virender Singh on telephone for necessary action. He proved the copy of Rojnamcha Register-A Ex.PW5/A1 (OSR) in which the GD No. 031A was manually lodged. On that day, at about 19:55 p.m., Duty Constable Jasbir from Trauma Center AIIMS had FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 7....of 24 telephonically informed that Pt Pardeep Kumar S/o Balwant Singh age 30 Yrs R/o Barrack No. 2 Chowki Nehru Place Kalka Ji Delhi jo main Jasola Road se accident me Majrub hokar ASI Chander Veer K-8 PCR ne MLC No. 50009006/18 par dakhil karaya hai. On the basis of said information GD No. 035A dated 12.04.2018 was lodged. He proved the computerized copy of GD No. 035A Ex.PW5/B. The information of said GD was given to ASI Virender Singh on telephone for necessary action. He proved the copy of Rojnamcha Register-A Ex.PW5/A2 (OSR) in which the GD No. 035A was manually lodged.
10. PW-6 HC Pradeep Yadav deposed that on 12.04.2018, he was posted as Constable at Traffic Circle Sarita Vihar from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. On that day, he alongwith ASI Hari Kishan ZO, HC Pushpender were on duty in front of Kalindi Kunj Hospital on road no. 13 and were present for challaning the vehicles which were passing from side of Kalindi Kunj towards Okhla. At about 5:45 p.m., one car No. HR-73A-1726 was found coming from side of Kalindi Kunj in a fast speed, being driven in rash and negligent manner. He gave signal by hand to stop the said car when the car reached near them. When he tried to stop the said car, the driver of said car did not stop and hit him, due to which he fell on the road and the car moved towards the Okhla under pass side. The accused had obstructed him in performing his official duties at the time of incident. HC FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 8....of 24 Pushpender, who was present with him, made 100 number call. On which, PCR came and took him to Trauma Center AIIMS. The said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of said vehicle and he received injuries in the said incident. He had given a written complaint to ASI Virender Singh vide Ex.PW6/A. He had stated in his statement that he can identify the driver of the said vehicle if produced before him. He correctly identified the accused before Court. He deposed that on 13.04.2018, he had joined the investigation with the IO of the case and shown him the spot of incident where site plan vide Ex.PW6/B was prepared at his instance by the IO. In the incident, he had received injuries and his left shoulder got fractured. The car No. HR-73A-1726 was produced by PW3 Muse Khan on 27.07.2022 which is already Ex.P-1. He identified the photographs Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-6 of the offending car available in the file.
11. PW-7 ASI Maharaj Singh deposed that on 12.04.2018, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Sarita Vihar. On that day, on receipt of information regarding DD No. 31A, he alongwith ASI Virender Singh reached in front of Kalindi Hospital, Road No. 13, Jasola where they came to know that traffic staff had been taken by PCR at Trauma Center, AIIMS. Meanwhile, information regarding DD No. 35A was received from Trauma Center on which they reached at Trauma Center, FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 9....of 24 AIIMS where ASI Virender Singh had collected MLC of Ct. Pradeep who had been discharged. Thereafter, he alongwith ASI Virender Singh returned to PS from hospital. Injured Ct. Pradeep, ASI Hari Kishan and HC Pushpender met them in the PS. Ct. Pradeep had given a written complaint to ASI Virender Singh on which he prepared rukka and handed over the same for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he alongwith Ct. Pradeep and ASI Virender Singh reached at the spot where site plan of the spot of incident was prepared by the IO at his instance. They had searched the offending vehicle and its driver but they could not be found. He deposed that on 14.05.2018, he had again joined the investigation of the case alongwith ASI Virender Singh and were present in the PS. Mr. Moose Khan, owner of the offending car No. HR-73A-1726 alongwith his driver Jakria had produced his car and the accused Jakria (driver of the offending vehicle) in the PS. Car was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW3/B. Mr. Moose Khan also produced original documents, RC, permit and insurance which were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex.PW3/C. Accused Jakria had produced his driving licence, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. Accused was interrogated and thereafter, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/B. Accused was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW7/C. Thereafter, he was released on personal bail FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 10....of 24 bond by the IO. His statements were recorded by the IO. He correctly identified accused Jakria before Court. The car No. HR-73A-1726 was produced by PW-3 Moose Khan on 27.07.2022. He identified the photographs Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-6 of the offending car available in the file.
12. PW-8 SI Hari Kishan deposed that on 12.04.2018, he was posted as ASI in Traffic Circle Sarita Vihar. On that day at about 5:45 p.m., he alongwith HC Pushpender and Ct. Pradeep were present at Road No. 13, Kalindi Kunj towards Okhla Road in front of Kalindi Hospital. They were checking and challaning the vehicles there. Meanwhile, a taxi car bearing No. HR-73A- 1726 came from the side of Kalindi Kunj in a fast speed and in rash and negligent manner being driven by the said car. Ct. Pradeep had given signal to stop the said car but despite that the driver of said car hit Ct. Pradeep, due to which, he fell down on the road. HC Pushpender had made 100 number call. PCR reached at the spot and Ct. Pradeep was taken by them in the PCR to Trauma Center, AIIMS. After treatment, he alongwith Ct. Pradeep and HC Pushpender returned to PS Sarita Vihar. Ct. Pradeep had given a written complaint to ASI Virender Singh in the PS on which ASI Virender Singh prepared rukka and FIR was lodged. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Pradeep, HC Pushpender and HC Maharaj alongwith IO ASI Virender Singh reached at the spot where ASI Virender Singh had prepared the FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 11....of 24 site plan of spot of incident at the instance of Ct. Pradeep. They had searched the offending vehicle and its driver but they could not be found by them. His statement was recorded by the IO. He correctly identified accused Jakria before Court as the driver of the said offending car. He identified the car from the photographs Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-6 available in the file.
13. PW-9 Dr. Ankur Karn deposed that on 12.04.2018, he was posted as Jr. Resident at JPNATC, AIIMS Trauma Center. On that day, patient Ct. Pradeep Kumar was brought in the hospital with the alleged history of RTA. He examined the patient vide MLC No. 500090006/12 APR 2018 vide Ex.PW9/A. On examination, visible injuries on patient was Abrasion at left elbow, Abrasion at lower jaw and swelling at left shoulder. On the basis of discharge summary, on 30.04.2018, he had given the opinion regarding nature of injury as "grievous" on the MLC Ex.PW9/A at Point X.
14. PW-10 ASI Virender Singh deposed that on 12.04.2018, on receipt of information regarding GD No.31A he alongwith HC Maharaj reached at road No.13, going from Kalindi Kunj towards Okhla side in front of Kalindi Hospital, Jasola, New Delhi. There, he came to know that injured (i.e. traffic constable) had been taken to the hospital by the PCR officials. Meanwhile, information regarding GD No.35A was received in respect of admission of injured in the hospital. Thereafter, he FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 12....of 24 alongwith HC Maharaj reached at Trauma Center, AIIMS. He collected MLC of Ct. Pradeep Kumar from the hospital. He came to know that Ct. Pradeep Kumar had been discharged from the hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Maharaj returned to PS. He met Ct. Pradeep Kumar in the PS. ASI Hari Kishan and HC Pushpender were also present in the PS. He had made inquiry from Ct. Pradeep Kumar about the incident and on his statement, he had prepared rukka Ex.PW10/A and handed over to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. Duty Officer had handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original rukka to him. Thereafter, he alongwith above stated police officials reached at the spot of incident where he had prepared site plan of the spot at the instance of Ct. Pradeep Kumar vide Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, they returned to PS from the spot. The ownership of the offending vehicle involved in the present case was obtained from the concerned transport authority. He deposed that on 01.05.2018, he had served a notice under Section 133 M V Act to the owner of the offending vehicle vide Ex.PW10/B. The reply on the notice was given by its owner Muse Khan vide Ex.PW3/A. He deposed that on 05.05.2018, the owner of the offending vehicle No. HR 73A 1726 namely Muse Khan had come to the PS. He handed over the original documents of the offending vehicle which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. He had also produced the FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 13....of 24 offending vehicle which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. He deposed that on 14.05.2018, the owner of the offending vehicle namely Muse Khan had come at PS alongwith the driver of the offending vehicle namely Jakaria. The original DL of accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. The accused Jakaria was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW7/C. Accused was released on bail bond vide Ex.PW10/C. He deposed that on 14.05.2018, the above-said vehicle was mechanically inspected by T.U. Siddiqui at PS Sarita Vihar vide inspection report Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that on 14.05.2018, he had moved an application before the concerned Court for TIP of accused Jakaria vide application Ex.PW10/D. On the same day, TIP of the accused was conducted by the Ld. MM in which accused had refused to join the TIP proceedings. The nature of injury on the MLC of Ct. Pradeep Kumar was obtained from the doctor wherein the doctor had opined the nature of injuries as grievous and kind of weapon as blunt. He had obtained the duty roster Ex.PW4/B regarding the posting of traffic police official on the date and spot of incident. He had obtained the complaint under Section 195 Cr.PC vide Ex.PW4/A from Sh. Gursewak Singh ACP Traffic, South East District for the prosecution of accused Jakaria in present case. The registered owner of the above said vehicle had moved an application for release of the offending FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 14....of 24 vehicle on superdari which was released to the superdar by the orders of the Hon'ble Court vide superdarinama Ex.PW3/D. The panchnama is Ex.PW3/E. He identified the photographs Ex.P2 to Ex.P6 of the above said vehicle No. HR-73A-1726. During the course of investigation, he had recorded statements of witnesses. The chargesheet was prepared u/s 279/186/353/333 IPC against the accused and same was filed by him before the concerned Court. He correctly identified the accused Jakaria before Court.
15. The accused admitted the genuineness of the FIR No. 91/2018, PS Sarita Vihar and the genuineness of the TIP Proceedings dated 14.05.2018 u/s 294 Cr.P.C. and accordingly the corresponding witnesses were dropped from list of witnesses.
16. Prosecution evidence was closed on 24.08.2023.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C & DEFENCE EVIDENCE
17. On 20.09.2023, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused was put to accused. Accused claimed that it is a false case and that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The police officials never gave him any signal and he was coming in middle lane of the road and at that time, it was heavy rush on the road. He had not met with any FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 15....of 24 accident. The police officials of PS Sarita Vihar falsely implicated him in this false case. He preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
DISCUSSION
18. I have heard the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the case file.
19. As per prosecution's case, the accused was driving a car bearing registration no. HR 73 A 1726 in a rash and negligent manner at the spot of incident at a relevant time and when the traffic police officials signaled him to stop his vehicle, he did not comply with the said directions. Rather he hit one of the traffic police officials with his vehicle and then fled from the spot.
Identity of Accused
20. In order to prove the identity of the accused as the driver of the said car bearing registration No. HR 73 A 1726, the prosecution has examined PW 3 Muse Khan and PW 6 HC Pardeep. PW3 Muse Khan is the registered owner of the said car. During the course of investigation, he was served a notice u/s 133 Motor Vehicles Act directing him to reveal the identity of the driver of his said car who was driving the same at the relevant time. In response to the said notice, PW 3 produced the accused in the PS on 14.05.2018. Accused was then formally arrested in the present FIR by PW-10 IO/ASI Virender. PW 3 FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 16....of 24 Muse Khan was cross examined in brief on behalf of the accused, but his oral testimony does not reflect anything favourable to the accused. We may refer to the cross- examination of PW3 Muse Khan wherein the accused asked PW 3 Muse Khan as to at what time he (accused) had left with the said car on the relevant day and at what time he (accused) returned with the said car. Although PW3 Muse Khan could not shed any light on the above aspects but by putting the said queries the accused seems to have admitted that he (accused) was driving the said car at the relevant date, time and place. That apart, PW 6 HC Pardeep has categorically identified the accused as the driver of the said car bearing registration No. HR 73 A 1726 during the course of trial. Accused has not bothered to challenge the said assertion of PW 6 HC Pardeep as no suggestion disputing the said assertion was ever given during the cross-examination (of PW 6 HC Pardeep). Admittedly, the accused refused to undergo TIP proceedings during the course of investigation, which proceedings were admitted by him u/s 294 Cr.P.C to be genuine during the course of trial. An adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the accused on that account as well. Moreover, the accused himself admits that he was driving the said car bearing registration no. HR 73 A 1726 at the relevant time at the stage of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In the entire facts and circumstances noted above, FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 17....of 24 this court find its appropriate to uphold the claim of the prosecution that the accused was driving the said car at the relevant date, time and place.
Scene of Occurrence
21. In the present case, the prosecution has examined PW-2 HC Pushpender, PW-6 HC Pardeep and PW-8 SI Hari Kishan so as to prove the facts and circumstances existing at the spot at the relevant time. As per said witnesses, they were present at the spot at the relevant time on 12.04.2018 in the course of their official duties, when they noticed the car bearing registration No. HR 73 A 1726 coming from the direction of Kalindi Kunj, while being driven in a rash and negligent manner. They further deposed that the said vehicle was signaled to stop by HC Pardeep, but the driver of said car did not halt his vehicle and rather hit HC Pardeep and then fled with his car towards Okhla underpass. They further deposed that HC Pardeep sustained injuries due to said collision. They further deposed that a call was made at 100 number by HC Pushpender, whereafter a PCR Van arrived at the spot and shifted HC Pardeep to Trauma Center. The above assertions of PW 2 HC Pushpender have gone unchallenged and unrebutted as the accused failed to lead any cross examination during the course of trial. Although PW 6 HC Pardeep and PW 8 SI Hari Kishan were cross examined in brief qua the said assertions, however, the same does not reflect FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 18....of 24 any infirmity or inconsistency. None of the said witnesses betrayed any sign of falsity and untruth during the course of their cross examination. That apart, the accused has made several admissions during the course of trial, which admissions corroborate the case of the prosecution w.r.t the aspects deposed by the above said witnesses. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said admissions made during the cross examination of witnesses hereinafter for convenience of all. The relevant portions of crossexamination of witnesses is as under: ........... I do not remember how many vehicles were challaned on that day by us. I had not put any barricade at the said post. I had given signal by hand to stop the car while standing on th road..................I tried to stop the car by raising my hands.................. My uniform was not torn in the said incident.................It is wrong to suggest that I had not given signal to the driver of the said vehicle to stop........."
(PW6 HC Pradeep Yadav in his crossexamination dated 09.11.2022 on behalf of accused) "No barricades were put up by us while checking the vehicles. I can not tell the exact width of the road on which we were checking the vehicles. However, there was a divider in between two sides at the center of the road..........Ct. Pardeep was standing on the divider side on the road and we were standing on the opposite side. Ct. Pardeep had given signal to the driver of the offending car to stop while he was standing on the road near to the divider........ I can not FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 19....of 24 tell the exact fast speed of the offending vehicle as I was not having any instrument for its measurement at that time.......
(PW8 SI Hari Kishan in his crossexamination dated 18.01.2023 on behalf of accused)
22. It is apparent from the above extracts of cross examination of the said witnesses that the accused has admitted
a) the availability of PW 2 HC Pushpender, PW 6 HC Pardeep and PW 8 SI Hari Kishan at the spot at the relevant time, b) his own arrival in the said car at the relevant time, c) him being signaled by HC Pardeep to stop the car and, d) him hitting HC Pardeep with his car and fleeing from the spot.
23. All the above admissions are binding upon the accused in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC Online SC 355. Consequently, it has to be held that all the arguments raised by the Ld. Defence Counsel challenging the case of the prosecution in the above aspects are liable to be rejected. As such, this court does not find any reason to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW 2 HC Pushpender, PW 6 HC Pardeep and PW 8 SI Hari Kishan in either of the above aspects deposed by them during the course of trial.
24. The above conclusions are also fortified by the oral FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 20....of 24 testimony of PW1 Sh. Tasnimuddin Siddiqui, who inspected the said car bearing registration number HR 73A 1726 on 14.05.2018 and reported that the said car had sustained fresh damages at the front bumper and front bonnet.
Nature of Injuries
25. As per PW9 Dr. Ankur, who examined PW6 HC Pardeep on 12.04.2018 vide MLC Ex. PW9/A, PW6 HC Pardeep had sustained grievous injuries. (The discharge summary of PW6 HC Pardeep reflects that he had suffered a FractureLeft Proximal Humerus). Although it is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the accused that the said injury is possible due to a "fall", however, in view of the above circumstances established on record by the prosecution against the accused, this Court does not find it appropriate to uphold the submission that the said injury sustained by PW6 HC Pardeep was in fact sustained due to some other cause. As such this Court hereby holds that PW6 HC Pardeep sustained grievous injuries in the aforementioned manner (as claimed by the prosecution).
Investigation
26. Rest of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed about the investigation carried out by police after the registration of FIR No. 91/2018 PS Sarita Vihar. PW-5 ASI Narbir Singh deposed about the recording of GD No. 31A FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 21....of 24 recorded at the PS on 12.04.2018 in respect of the above mentioned incident. He further deposed about the recording of GD No. 35A recorded at the PS on 12.04.2018 regarding the admission of PW-6 HC Pardeep in Trauma Centre, AIIMS. PW-7 ASI Maharaj Singh and PW-10 ASI Virender Singh deposed about the various stages of investigation. PW-4 ACP Gursewak Singh deposed to have given a complaint against the accused U/s 195 Cr.PC after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case brought to his notice by the IO PW-10 ASI Virender Singh. All the said witnesses were cross- examined in brief on behalf of the accused, but none betrayed any signs of falsity or untruth. They seem to have withstood the test of cross-examination. This Court finds their oral testimony to be reliable, trust worthy and worth acting upon.
27. It may be noted here that the accused has already admitted the genuineness of the FIR No. 91/2018 PS Sarita Vihar U/s 294 Cr.PC during the course of Trial.
Adjudication as to Charges
28. Having adjudicated the facts established on record by the prosecution, now this Court proceeds to assess whether the said facts justify the charges framed against the accused.
29. It must be observed here that the prosecution has established on record that the accused was driving a car bearing registration no. HR 73 A 1726 in a rash and negligent manner at FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 22....of 24 the spot of incident at a relevant date and time and when the traffic police officials signaled him to stop his vehicle, he did not comply with the said directions. Rather he hit one of the traffic police officials with his vehicle and then fled from the spot. Although the accused has been charged U/s 279 IPC alongwith sections 186/333/353 IPC, however, give the nature of allegations against the accused the said sets of allegations could not co-exist at the same time. Reason being the fact that the requisite mens-rea/intent/animus for the said two sets of allegations are completely different and do not overlap. Rashness or Negligence are the essential ingredients of Section 279 IPC, whereas Sections 186/333/353 IPC require intent to voluntarily cause obstruction, grievous hurt and use of criminal force upon a public servant discharging his duties. Since the entire thrust of the prosecution is to establish that the accused intentionally refused to abide by the lawful instructions of PW-6 HC Pardeep at the relevant time and then proceeded to hit him (PW6 HC Pardeep) with his car bearing registration HR73A 1726, therefore, by no stretch of imagination the accused could be held to be 'rash or negligent' so as to warrant his conviction U/s 279 IPC. Accused is accordingly acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 279 IPC.
30. It is not the case of the accused that PW6 HC Pardeep suddenly jumped in front of his car, rendering him incapable of FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 23....of 24 taking any evasive measures. It is not the case of the accused that his car suddenly developed a mechanical snag or brake failure, which lead to the collision. In the absence of such circumstances, this court could reasonably assume that the collision between the car driven by accused and victim HC Pardeep was a direct result of the intention of accused to hit PW6 HC Pardeep in order to disobey his lawful directions (to halt his car). By doing so, the accused unlawfully obstructed PW-6 HC Pardeep from discharging his public functions by the use of criminal force and also voluntarily caused grievous hurt to PW6 HC Pardeep in the course of said transaction. As such, the accused stands convicted for the offences punishable U/s 186/353/333 IPC. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2023.10.30 17:05:52 +0530 Dictated and Announced in open Court on 30.10.2023. (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South- East), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No: 91/2018 PS: Sarita Vihar page no. 24....of 24