Delhi District Court
State vs . Dharamveer on 22 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR, MM-06,
(NORTH)ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Dharamveer
PS. Adarsh Nagar
1. FIR No. : 320/00
2. Date of Offence : 20.06.2000
3. Name of the complainant : ASI Ram Parshad
4. Name, parentage and Address : Dharamveer
of the accused S/o Sh Chattar Singh
R/o Village Sheikh Pur,
PS Babugarh Chavni,
District Ghaziabad, UP.
5. Offences complained of : 279/304A IPC
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
7. Date of reserving the order : 16.12.2015
8. Sentence or final order : Convicted.
9. Date of order : 22.12.2015
10.Unique ID No. : 02401R0212442001
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 20.06.2000 at 00:05 AM at Y point Ring Road, Azad Pur, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS. Adarsh Nagar accused was found driving truck no. HR 47 6046 in rash and negligent manner and thereby caused death of one Dharamvir who was going FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 1 on a scooter.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused. The copy of charge-sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter notice under Section 279/304A IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, prosecution examined 11 witnesses. PW-1 is Karamveer, PW-2 is Ram Khiladi, PW-3 is ASI Kamaljeet, PW-4 is Ram Ji Rajpal, PW-5 is Dr Rajesh Gupta, PW-6 is Raju, PW-7 is Ct Joginder, PW-8 is HC Yash Pal Singh, PW-9 is Retd SI Jai Singh, PW-10 is Ct Bunny Singh and PW-11 is Retd SI Dhani Ram.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded. Accused opted not to lead DE.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have perused the record.
6. The testimony of prosecution witnesses will be analyzed and discussed later at appropriate stage however their testimonies are being touched upon, in brief, here only, as follows:-
Eye witness 6.1 PW-1 was examined as eye witness in the present case. He deposed that he FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 2 seen the accident. He further deposed that accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner in high speed on 20.06.2000 and struck against scooter which was going in front of the truck and ultimately caused scooterist the death of Dharamvir.
Doctor.
6.2 PW-5 Dr Rajesh Gupta deposed that on 21.06.2000 at about 1 PM he conducted the postmortem on the dead body of deceased Dharamvir vide postmortem report no. 1365 ExPW5/A. It is deposed that all injuries were ante-motem and were caused by blunt force impact or run over by vehicle.
The cause of death was mentioned as Carnio Cerebral injuries. Witnesses of Investigation 6.3 PW-7 deposed that on 20.06.2000 he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar and on that day after receiving DD no 18 A he along with ASI Ram Parshad went to the spot of accident where they saw a scooter no. D1F 5565 and a truck no. HR 47 6046 lying in accidental condition. He deposed that no eye witness was found at the spot. Rukka was prepared and FIR got registered. Vehicles were seized vide seizure memos ExPW7/A and ExPW7/B respectively. 6.4 PW-10 deposed that on 20.06.2000 he was posted at PS Adarsh Nagar and he along with ASI Ram Parshad went at the spot of accident where they found a truck bearing no. HR 47 6046 and a scooter no. D 1F 5565 in accidental condition. They came to know that injured has been shifted to hospital. Driver of offending truck was searched but all efforts went in vain. Site plan was prepared by IO and vehicles were seized.
Other Formal Witnesses 6.5 PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 identified the dead body of the deceased FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 3 Dharamvir in the mortuary Subzi Mandi.
6.6 PW-3 deposed that he was working as Duty Officer on 20.06.2000 in PS Adarsh Nagar and recorded the present FIR no. 320/2000 as ExPW3/A. 6.7 PW-8 deposed that he took photographs of the spot from various angles. Photographs were proved as ExPW8/A1 to ExPW8/A12.
6.8 PW-9 deposed that on 20.06.2000 he conducted mechanical inspection of scooter bearing no DIF 5565 and truck no. HR 47 6046 on the request of IO vide reports ExPW9/A and ExPW9/B. 6.9 PW-11 deposed that DD no. 18 A dated 20.06.2000 has been destroyed by orders of DCP North- West.
7. It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own leg.
8. By virtue of testimony of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6 read with the testimony of PW-5 it is clear that the deceased Dharamvir expired due to road traffic accident. PW-5 Dr Rajesh Gupta was examined to prove the postmortem report 1365. PW-5 deposed that all the injuries were ante-motem being caused by blunt force impact/run over by vehicle. He further deposed that death was due to cranio cerebral injuries. PW-5 was not cross examined on behalf of accused. Thus the testimony of PW-5 stands admitted on behalf of accused. Thus it came on record the deceased Dharamvir expired due to injuries FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 4 suffered in road traffic accident.
9. It is nowhere disputed during the trial that accident occurred between truck bearing registration no. HR 47 6046 and a scooter. Same is also clear from photographs which is ExPW8/A12.
10. Now coming to the disputed facts - firstly the identity of accused as the driver of the offending vehicle and alleged rash and negligent driving by the accused. The prosecution is relying heavily on the testimony of PW-1 who is examined as the sole eye witness of the present case. On the other hand the defence of accused argued that PW-1 is a planted witness and he is not a eye witness. Ld Defence counsel is relying upon the contradictions which came in the testimony of PW-1 during cross examination.
11. PW-1 was examined in chief in the year 2002. he deposed that on 20.06.2000 he was going towards his house in his car and when he reached at Y Point, Ring Road, Azad Pur, he saw one truck bearing registration no. HR 47 6046 being driven by accused Dharamvir. He correctly identified the accused in the court. He further deposed that accused was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner at a very fast speed as there was no much traffic. PW-1 deposed that truck driver hit the scooterist from behind due to which the scooter got under the front wheels of the truck and scooterist fell down on the other side of truck and received head injuries. PW-1 deposed that even after hitting scooter accused kept on driving the truck inspite the fact that scooter remained struck under the front part of the truck and he took the scooter for FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 5 about 150 yards. He again deposed that accused present in the court was the driver of the offending truck.
12. Perusal of examination in chief of PW-1 makes it clear that he supported the case of prosecution to the full extent during examination in chief. He correctly identified the accused in the court. He deposed that accused was the driver of the offending vehicle and the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner at a very high speed. There is no gap in the examination in the chief of PW-1 which could be supportive of accused.
13. PW-1 was not cross examined on the day when the examination in chief of PW-1 was recorded on 10.12.2002, despite the fact that the counsel for accused was present on that day. An application U/s 311 Cr.PC was moved on 24.11.2014 i.e after around 12 years of the examination in chief of PW-1. That application was allowed in the interest of justice. PW-1 was cross examined on 24.02.2015. In the cross examination some contradictions appears between the examination in chief and cross examination and now the accused is relying on those contradictions. These contradictions are being discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
14. Ld Counsel for accused argued that PW-1 examination in chief deposed that at the time of accident he was going in his Maruti car and on the other hand in the cross examination he deposed that before the accident he was going in Indica car which broke down near the spot of accident and he left the car and was going on foot when the accident took place. Another contradiction FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 6 pointed out by Ld defence Counsel is that PW-1 in examination in chief deposed that there was no traffic at the spot but in cross examination he deposed that there was heavy traffic at the spot. Ld Defence Counsel further argued that PW-1 in cross examination deposed that the speed of truck was around 20-25 kmph and on the other hand in examination in chief he deposed that the truck was being driven at a high speed. Ld Defence Counsel argued that these contradictions are vital contradictions and these contradictions destroyed the case of prosecution. Before considering these contradictions one thing is to very much relevant and to be kept in mind that PW-1 was cross examined after a huge gap of more than 12 years from the day when his examination in chief was recorded. Some contradictions are bound to come if a person is questioned about the incident for which he deposed 12 years back. A person cannot be expected to behave like a computer by remembering all the old facts clearly.
15. The first contradictions pointed out is regarding the situation of PW-1 at the time of accident i.e whether PW-1 was going in car or not or whether he was standing at the spot. This contradiction is not a vital contradiction. The relevant issue is whether PW-1 was a natural witness or not. If PW-1 deposed after 12 years of examination in chief that he was standing at the spot as his car got broke down before the accident is not such a vital contradiction that suggest that PW-1 was not present at the spot. The other contradiction is of speed of the truck. In the examination in chief PW-1 deposed that truck was being driven at high speed and in the cross examination he deposed that the speed was 20-25 kmph. The speed of the truck is not a fact in issue. The fact FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 7 in issue is whether the accused was rash or negligent in driving the truck or not. It is well settled law that the speed of truck is not determinative of the fact whether the accused was negligent or rash in his driving or not. The other contradiction pointed out is regarding the intensity of traffic. As above mentioned the speed of the truck is not fact in issue and accordingly it is not very much relevant whether there was huge traffic at the time of incident or not. The presence of huge traffic can affect speed of the truck but the issue of rashness and negligence has no bearing with the speed.
16. Moreover PW-1 remained unshaken in the cross examination qua some very crucial facts. PW-1 categorically denied the suggestion that he identified the driver of the offending vehicle at the instance of police. He voluntarily deposed that he saw the driver of the truck driving the truck as well as running from the spot of accident. This voluntarily statement made by the PW-1 to the suggestion put to him makes it clear that he is a natural witness and he seen the driver of offending vehicle whom he identified as accused in this case. He deposed in cross examination also that the scooter got struck under the front wheels of the truck. This deposition got corroboration from the photographs as ExPW8/A1, ExPW8/A7 proved on record and his deposition that the victim suffered head injuries also got corroborated from the photographs ExPW8/A2, ExPW8/A3, ExPW8/A4, ExPW8/A8 available on record and these photographs have not been challenged anywhere during the trial by the accused. PW-1 categorically denied in cross examination that the truck was bing driven in normal speed and in right direction. He further denied that accident took place due to fault of scooterist. PW-1 supported his FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 8 statement made by him in examination in chief in material aspects.
17. The testimony of PW-1 remained unshaken regarding the identity of accused as the driver of offending vehicle. He deposed that he saw the accused at the time of accident being a driver of offending vehicle. I found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 who stood the test of cross examination qua material aspects even after 12 years of examination in chief. Thus it came on record that accused was the driver of offending vehicle.
18. PW-1 deposed that scooterist was going in front of offending vehicle and the same was deposed by him in cross examination also. He deposed that accused hit the scooterist from behind. It is not the case of accused that the scooterist suddenly came in front of the scooter or the scooter got slipped by itself. It is further not the case of accused that due to some mechanical defect in the offending vehicle accident took place. PW- 9 SI Jai Singh proved on record the mechanical inspection report of truck vide ExPW9/B vide which it is clear that there was no mechanical defect in the truck and vehicle was fit for road test. If a scooter is dashed by a heavy vehicle from behind then this in itself amounts to rash driving. The drivers of the heavy vehicles are expected to take care of the light vehicles also. There are two points 'A' and 'B' in the site plan. 'A' is the point where the dead body was found and 'B' is the point where the offending truck and scooter was found. There is a substantial distance between point 'A' and 'B'. If the scooterist fallen down at point 'A' then how the truck and scooter found at point 'B'. Here the testimony of PW-1 is again relevant when he deposed that after hitting the scooter the truck not stopped FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 9 but the truck driver took the scooter for distance about 150 yards. Point A and B makes it clear that the truck did not stop immediately after the accident rather it took the scooter to a substantial distance after the accident. If a scooter is being dragged for around 150 meters after the accident then this makes it clear that the truck was dashed against the scooter in a very high speed and in negligent manner. This in itself also shows that the rashness on the part of accused. Thus it stands proved that accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
19. In view of the above discussion it stands proved that on 20.06.2000 at Y Point, Ring Road, Azad Pur, the accused was driving the vehicle bearing registration no. HR 47 6046 in rash and negligent manner and hit the truck against the scooter which resulted into the death of driver of scooter namely Dharamvir. All the ingredients of offence U/s 279/304 A IPC stands proved. Accused is convicted U/s 279/304 A IPC.
Accused is convicted for the offence U/s 279/304 A IPC. Copy of this judgment be supplied to convict free of cost. Be heard on point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (KAPIL KUMAR)
on 22.12.2015. Metropolitan Magistrate-06
North District, Rohini Court
FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 10
FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 11
FIR No. 320/00 Unique Id no. 2401R0212442001 12