Delhi District Court
State vs . Nishant on 20 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURT : DELHI
FIR No. : 552/14
PS : Pandav Nagar
u/s : 279/338IPC
STATE VS. Nishant
JUDGMENT
A ID. No. of the case 230/17 B Name of the complainant Rajender Kumar s/o Late Sh. Munshi Lal C Name of the accused & Nishant s/o Sh Satyapal Garg r/o his parentage and House No.45, Gali No.6A, Old Arya address Nagar Gaziabad, UP.
D Offence Complained of U/s 279/338
E Date of commission of 13.07.2014
offence.
F Date of Institution 23.01.2017
G Offence Charged U/s 279/338 IPC
H Plea of the accused Pleaded Not Guilty
I Order Reserved on 20.12.2018
J Date of Pronouncement 20.12.2018
K Final Order Acquitted of offence u/s 279/338
IPC
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION PROSECUTION'S CASE 1 The story of the prosecution is that on 13.07.14 at about 9.45 am at Patparganj Fly Over, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Pandav Nagar accused Nishant was found driving vehicle make Polo bearing FIR No.552/14 State vs. Nishant Page 1 of 4 registration no.UP 14B XZ 1747 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person and while so driving he hit the complainant Rajender Kumar and caused grevious hurt to him. Thereby, he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC. CHARGE 2 After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr. P.C was filed on 23.01.2017 u/s 279/338 IPC.
3 On the basis of the charge-sheet and after compliance of Sec.207 Cr.P.C., a charge for the offence punishable under sections 279/338 IPC was framed against the accused and read out to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 20.12.2018. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 4 To bring home the guilt against the accused persons prosecution has cited 09 witnesses in all and no witness has been examined. 5 The complainant/injured Rajender Kumar was summoned through DCP East but he could not be traced and was accordingly dropped vide order dated 20.12.2018 being untraceable. 6 The remaining witnesses who are yet to be examined by the prosecution are all police witnesses or the doctors. None of the remaining witnesses is a witness to the alleged incident and no other witness is competent enough to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC charged against him. 7 It has been argued by Ld. APP for the State that IO may be summoned for his evidence to prove the offence alleged against the accused.
8 I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made however to my mind no purpose will be served by examining the IO or FIR No.552/14 State vs. Nishant Page 2 of 4 any other police witness as they are not in a position to depose about the guilt of the accused or the rash and negligent driving of the accused resulting in the accident. Accordingly none of the witnesses is capable of proving the offence as charged against the accused and they can depose only about the role played by them in investigation. 9 In these circumstances the offence charged against the accused cannot be proved in the absence of testimony of injured Rajender Kumar who is the sole eye witness to the accident and is not traceable and is already dropped from the list of witnesses. Hence, recording the statement of remaining witnesses would be a futile exercise and wastage of judicial time, resources and money. 10 In the opinion of the court, this is a fit case to close PE and acquit the accused so as to protect their right of speedy justice as incorporated in Article 21 of Indian Constitution. In "P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka" AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856 ( Coram : 7 S. P. BHARUCHA, C.J.I., S. S. M. QUADRI, R. C. LAHOTI, N. SANTOSH HEGDE, DORAISWAMY RAJU, Mrs. RUMA PAL, A. PASAYAT, JJ.) 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. .................. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay's case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it was clear FIR No.552/14 State vs. Nishant Page 3 of 4 that even apart from Article 21, the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting to an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted."
(emphasis supplied) "30........................................ In conclusion we hold:-
(1) ....................
(2)......................
(3) ....................
(4) .....................
(5) The Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial Judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines. In appropriate cases jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions".
11 Accordingly, PE stands closed, SA dispensed with and accused namely Nishant is acquitted of offences charged against them. 12 File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed by
ON 20.12.2018 SHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA
Location: East District
Karkardooma Courts Delhi
SHARMA Date: 2018.12.20 16:02:20
+0530
(SHIVALI SHARMA)
CMM (EAST)/KKD/20.12.2018
Certified that this judgement contains 4 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SHIVALI SHARMA) CMM (EAST)/KKD/20.12.2018 FIR No.552/14 State vs. Nishant Page 4 of 4