Delhi District Court
State vs . Moti Nagar 1/5 on 29 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Mukesh Kumar
FIR No. 546/2004
PS Moti Nagar
U/s 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act
JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 549/2/10
Unique case ID No. : 02401R1208992005
Date of Institution : 28.09.2005
Date of Commission of Offence : 04.10.2004
Name of the complainant : HC Rajbir Singh
Name & address of the accused : Mukesh Kumar
S/o Saman Singh
R/o 16/552, I-Block,
Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi
Offence complained of : U/s 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Acquitted
Date of reserve for judgment : 29.05.2015
Date of announcing of judgment : 29.05.2015
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
ALLEGATIONS
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under Section 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act.
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 04.10.2004 at about 11:00 PM at Main FIR No. 546/2004 u/s. 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 1/5 Nazafgarh Road in front of Tanga Stand, Moti Nagar, Delhi, accused Mukesh Kumar was driving a motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-4SU-3175. The accused was in a drunken condition and was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Victim Bablu was the pillion rider on the motorcycle. While driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent, accused struck against a metro pole due to which both of them got injured and pillion rider Bablu received grievous injuries.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed. The accused was summoned to face trial and he was supplied the copy of charge sheet as per section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under section 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act was framed against accused Mukesh Kumar to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the above said allegations, the prosecution has cited 7 witnesses. Prosecution has examined only one witness i.e (1) ASI Goverdhan.
6. PW1 ASI Goverdhan was the Duty Officer, who exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
7. Summons were issued to PW Bablu, who is the victim and only eye witness of the incident, however the summons received back with the report that victim Bablu @ Vijay has expired on 05.10.2008. The SHO has also filed on record copy of death certificate of the victim alongwith death verification report. All the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the accident.
8. As the only eye witness/ injured i.e Bablu @ Vijay has expired, carrying on with FIR No. 546/2004 u/s. 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 2/5 further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused and that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the accused. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Satish Mehra vs. Delhi Administration & Anrs. reported as 1996 JCC 507, that "in case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date". Hence vide a separate order, PE was closed.
9. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The Criminal Procedure Code, as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression.
Section 258, in Chapter XX of Cr.P.C., on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, FIR No. 546/2004 u/s. 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 3/5 to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
10. It has been held in above stated case that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put to an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
11. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under section 258 Cr.P.C qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Recording of statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is also dispensed with. Final Order
12.Since the eye witness/injured/victim Bablu @ Vijay has expired, hence, there is no evidence at all on record to prove that accused was driving in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. In the present case mother and wife of the victim appeared before the Court and raised a plea that victim has died due to the alleged accident in question. In the interest of justice, report in that respect was called through IO. Consequently, IO brought on record the postmortem report and death summary of the victim. It is to be noted that accident in question had taken place on 04.10.2004 and victim had died in the hospital on FIR No. 546/2004 u/s. 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 4/5 05.10.2008. As per the postmortem report the victim had died due to cardiac arrest, septicemia and multiple organ failure. Thus there is no direct connection between the accident in question and the death of the victim after 4 years. It is to be noted that due to the accident in question victim has received injuries in his elbow. Notice was also framed against the accused for commission of offence U/s 185 MV Act. It is to be noted that percentage of the alcohol in the blood of the accused is not mentioned in the MLC. As per Motor Vehicle Act there is a permissible limit (i.e. 30 mg/100 ml) of alcohol with which a person can drive a vehicle. Since the percentage of alcohol has not been mentioned in the MLC or anywhere else in the case file, hence, accused cannot be held guilty for commission of offence U/s 185 MV Act on the basis of material on record. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under s.258 of Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings against accused Mukesh Kumar qua offences u/s 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act and hereby releases the accused Mukesh Kumar under sections 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act, which shall have the effect of discharge.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 29.05.2015 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 5 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 546/2004 u/s. 279/338 IPC & 185 MV Act State Vs. Moti Nagar 5/5