Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar Singh on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 3293/2018
CNR No. -: DLWT020064042018
FIR No. -: 258/2017
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 279 IPC & 185 MV Act
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
ANIL KUMAR SINGH
S/o Sh. Dev Nandan Singh
R/o G-147/5, Gyatri Colony,
Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.
Permanent Address: Village Mundera Bugurg,
PO Sonu Gath, District Deoria, Uttar Pradesh.
.... Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- Sunil
2. Name of Accused :- Anil Kumar Singh
Person
3. Offence complained of :- 279 IPC & 185 MV Act
or proved
4. Plea of accused person :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 06.08.2017
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 11.05.2018
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 10.02.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 18.04.2026
9. Final Order :- Acquitted U/s 185 MV Act
Convicted U/s 279 IPC
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:12:47 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 1 of 29
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Ms. Suman Satyarthy, Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the accused is that on 06.08.2015, at about 6:00 PM, the complainant namely Sunil had parked his motorcycle bearing No. DL-1S- AB-0238 (Splendor) in front of his house and at about 8:30 AM, he saw that the driver of a small dumper bearing No. DL-1LP-7551, while driving his dumper in a very rash and negligent manner, struck his above-mentioned motorcycle, as a result of which his motorcycle bearing No. DL-1S-AB-0238 got damaged. It is further alleged that upon checking the motorcycle, the handle, rear-side crash guard, and leg guard were found damaged and the complainant immediately stopped the dumper vehicle and apprehended the dumper driver, whose name ascertained later on inquiry was found to be Anil Kumar and he was handed over along with the said dumper to the police. It is further case of prosecution at the above-mentioned time and place the accused was in a drunker state. As such, it is alleged that the accused committed the offence punishable under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, "MV Act"), for which an FIR No. 258/2017 was registered at Police Station Anand Parbat.
Digitally signedby ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:12:56 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 2 of 29 INVESTIGAION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer (hereinafter 'IO') conducted investigation and on culmination of the same, chargesheet against the present accused was filed. After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was summoned to face trial. The accused appeared in court and he was supplied the copies of documents relied upon in the charge sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.P.C").
3. On a finding a prima facie case against the accused Anil Kumar Singh, a charge was framed for the offences punishable U/s 279 IPC & 185 MV Act against the accused on 12.07.2019. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and documentary evidence against the accused person to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW1 :- Arvinder Singh (Mechanical Expert) PW2 :- Jatin Lamba (Registered owner of vehicle bearing no. DL1LP-7551) PW3 :- Sunil (Complainant) PW4 :- HC Dhirender (Accompanied IO at the spot) PW5 :- Kalu (Eye Witness) PW6 :- Retd. SI Om Prakash (IO) Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:13:01 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 3 of 29 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A :- Mechanical inspection reports of vehicles & Ex. bearing no. DL1LP-7551 and PW1/B DL1SAB-0238 Ex.PW2/A :- Reply of PW2/Jatin Lamba of the notice U/s 133 MV Act Ex. PW 2/B :- Superdarinama of vehicle no. DL1LP-7551 Ex. P1 - P4 :- Four Photographs of vehicle bearing no.
DL1LP-7551 Ex. PW3/A :- Complaint filed by complainant Ex. PW3/B :- Seizure memo of motorcycle of complainant Ex. PW3/C :- Arrest memo of accused Ex. PW3/D :- Personal search memo of accused Ex. P-5 :- Five photographs of motorcycle (Colly) Ex. PW4/A :- Seizure memo of vehicle no. DL1LP-7551 Ex. PW4/B :- Seizure memo of documents of the vehicle & Ex.
PW4/C
Ex. PW4/D :- Seizure memo of DL of accused
Ex. PW6/A :- Rukka
Ex. PW6/B :- Site Plan
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC)
Ex. AD-1 :- FIR along with certificate U/s 65 B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Ex. AD-2 :- Endorsement on rukka
Ex. AD-3 :- DD No. 18 B dated 06.08.2017
5. During the course of trial PW-1 Sh. Arvinder Singh was examined on 24.12.2019. In his examination in chief, he has stated that he is qualified Grade Mechanic and he has done specialized courses in automobile and vehicle mechanic from ITI in Auto Mobile and various vehicles manufacturing companies. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:13:09 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 4 of 29 He further deposed that till today he has mechanically inspected more than 6-7 thousand vehicles. PW1 further deposed that on 09.08.2017, he mechanically inspected two vehicles No. DLILP-7551 (Tata truck) and motorcycle (Splendor) No. DLISAB-0238 at the request of ASI Om Prakash from PS Anand Parbat and his detailed mechanical inspection reports in this regard are Ex.PWI/A and Ex.PW1/B. PW1 further deposed that as per his inspection report, the Tata truck was fit for road test but the motorcycle was/not lit for road test.
5.1. PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and he deposed that he had mechanically inspected the above said vehicles in the premises of PS Anand Parbat and it was around 05-06 PM, when he conducted the mechanical inspection.
6. PW-2/Sh. Jatin Lamba was examined-in-chief on 24.12.2019 and he stated on oath that he is the registered owner of vehicle No. DLILP-7551. He further deposed that in the month of August 2017; he went to PS Anand Parbat and police official served him a notice u/s 133 MV Act and he filed his reply on the same Ex.PW2/A. PW2 further deposed that he also stood surety for the bail of accused. PW2 further deposed that later on, he got the abovesaid vehicle released on superdari from the Court vide superdarinama Ex.PW2/B and he has identified the vehicle no. DLILP-7551 from four photographs shown to him which are Ex. P-1 to P-4.
6.1. PW-2 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused and he deposed that accused is known to his father but he does not know him personally. He further deposed Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:13:16 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 5 of 29 that as far as he can remember, accused was hired by them around 6-7 months prior to the date of incident and this was the first the incident committed by the accused. PW2 further deposed that accused was fired from the service after this incident. He further deposed that there was not so much damage on both the vehicles i.e. motorcycle and abovesaid truck.
7. PW-3/Sh. Sunil was examined in chief on 24.12.2019 and he stated on oath that on 06.08.2017 at about 6:00 P.M., he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration No. DLISAB-0238 outside his house and at around 8:30 P.M., he came outside his house and saw that one dumper bearing No. DLILP-7551 came in a very high speed and hit his motorcycle. PW3 further deposed that the driver of the said dumper was driving the abovesaid truck in zigzag manner and due to the hitting from the dumper, his motorcycle got damaged. He further deposed that thereafter, he asked the driver i.e., accused to stop the dumper and the accused reversed the abovesaid dumper in a high speed and thereafter, accelerated the dumper and ran away from there. PW3 further deposed that accused was heavily drunk at that time and thereafter, he chased the accused till his house. PW3 further deposed that he requested accused to get repair his abovesaid motorcycle but accused refused to do so and thereafter, I returned back to his house. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, he called at number 100 and police officials came at his house and he apprised all the facts to police officials. PW3 further deposed that thereafter, he along with police officials went to the house of accused and the police officials lifted the abovesaid truck from the house of accused. He further deposed Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:13:22 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 6 of 29 that his vehicle was also taken to police station by the police officials and he filed a complaint Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that when he checked his motorcycle, he found handle, lights, leg guard and arm guard etc. were damaged.
7.1. PW3 further deposed that police officials seized his motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B and prepared site plan at his instance. He further deposed that accused was called to police station and after interrogation accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. The witness correctly identified the accused in the court and also identified vehicle No. DLILP-7551 from 04 photographs Ex. P-1 to P-4 as well as the motorcycle from 05 photographs Ex. P-5 (colly).
7.2. PW-3 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, and he has deposed that at the time when accused hit his motorcycle with the abovesaid offending vehicle, he was standing outside his house near his bike. PW3 admitted the fact that his vehicle was insured at the time of accident. He further deposed that he has not filed any case before the MACT Court. He further deposed that he had informed the Insurance Company about the accident of his motorcycle and he did not receive any amount from Insurance Company. He further deposed that all the expenses were borne by him in getting his motorcycle repaired. PW3 denied the suggestion that he had received amount from the insurance company. He further deposed that he does not know accused prior to the accident. PW3 further deposed that on the day of accident, accused was driving the offending vehicle and when he stopped the accused, ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:13:29 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 7 of 29 smell of alcohol was coming out of accused. PW3 denied the suggestion that accused was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated by him in the present case or that accused was not driving the alleged offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner. PW3 also denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
8. PW-4/Sh. HC Dhirender Kumar was examined in chief on 06.02.2023 and he deposed on oath that on 06.08.2017, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as Const. and on that day, he was on emergency duty with IO SI Om Prakash. PW4 further deposed that he along with IO reached at the spot i.e., F-259, Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar where Dumper No. DLIP-7551 and motorcycle No. DLISAB-0238 were lying in accidental condition. He further deposed that the complainant produced the accused Anil Kumar and IO seized the both vehicles vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW4/A. PW4 further deposed that IO prepared rukka and gave to him for registration of the FIR and he went to PS and got registered the case and thereafter, he again came to the spot. PW4 further deposed that IO arrested the accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D and seized the documents of the vehicle vide memo Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. He further deposed that IO seized the DL of accused vide memo Ex.PW4/D and IO inspected the site at the instance of complainant and prepared site plan. PW4 further deposed that the injured got medically examined in Lady Hardinge Medical, College and his statement was recorded. The witness has correctly identified the motorcycle Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:13:36 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 8 of 29 and dumper from the photographs, shown to him.
8.1. PW-4 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, and he deposed that he departed from PS to spot vide DD No. 8A and they reached at the spot at about 9:00 AM. PW4 further deposed that he took rukka at about 10:00 AM and returned at spot after 40-45 minutes. He further deposed that he does not remember the time of leaving the spot lastly. PW4 denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot in the manner deposed by him or that he signed the documents at the instance of IO at PS. PW4 further denied the suggestion that he became the witness in the present case at the instance of IO or that he is deposing falsely.
9. PW-5/Sh. Kalu was examined in chief on 06.06.2023 wherein he deposed on oath that on 06.08.2017, between 8-9 AM, he saw that accused Anil Kumar Singh was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner had hit the two-wheeler make Hero Splender of one Mr. Sunil and the accused was under intoxicated condition at the time of incident. He further deposed that he can identify the vehicles, if shown to him.
9.1. PW-5 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, wherein he has deposed that he knows complainant Sh. Sunil Kumar as he is his neighbour and he does not remember the exact date, however, the accident had taken place on a Sunday in the year 2017 at about 08:30 AM and at the time of incident, he was standing outside his house and had himself witnessed the same. PW5 further deposed that there were many public persons present at the spot, however, no one agreed ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:13:42 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 9 of 29 to be witness and he knows accused as the accused resides in the same locality, however, he does not know his exact address as there are several jhuggies in the area, in which the accused is residing. PW5 further deposed that he does not know the name of the accused and the accused was in drunk condition at the time of driving and first he moved his car in the forward direction and then in the back direction. He further deposed that the handle, tanki, gear stand and indicator of the motorcycle were damaged due to the accident. He further deposed that complainant Sunil had called police officials and police officials came in his presence and he and complainant did not beat the accused. PW5 further deposed that the wife of the accused had only beaten. He further denied the suggestion that he along with complainant and wife of accused had beaten the accused. He further denied the suggestion that accused had suggested to compensate for the damage caused to the motor vehicle. PW5 further deposed that IO had conducted inquiry from him during investigation, as well as public persons, however, no one agreed. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan at the spot and had apprehended the accused almost immediately at about 08:30 AM-09:00 AM. He further deposed that he did not go to PS along with the complainant and police officials did not call him to PS for investigation. He further deposed that he is a battery rickshaw driver and he does not drink as he stays unwell. PW5 further deposed that he does not have any eyesight problem. He further deposed that he does not remember the number of the offending vehicle or accident vehicle due to lapse of time. PW5 further deposed that the complainant did not suffer any injury due to the accident caused by the accused and he does not remember ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:13:48 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 10 of 29 whether complainant was taken to hospital or not. PW5 denied the suggestion that no accident had taken place or that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case or that complainant and his motorcycle were not damaged by the accused in any manner. PW5 further denied the suggestion that the present case has been fled to extort money from the accused or that he did know the accused before the accident or that he is deposing falsely.
10. PW-6/Retd. SI Om Prakash was examined in chief on 16.04.2025 and he stated on oath that on 06.08.2017, he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as SI and on that day, at about 08:40 AM, he received a PCR call regarding accident. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Dhirender went to the spot i.e., F-259, Gayatri Colony, Anand where caller Sunil met with him and told him that his motorcycle, which was present at the spot, was hit by the offending vehicle. PW6 further deposed that Sunil had produced before him the truck driver namely Anil Kumar and told that Anil was driving the offending vehicle and thereafter, he recorded the statement of Sunil Ex.PW3/A. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex.PW6/A and he seized both the vehicles. PW6 further deposed that the motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B and he does not remember the registration number of the motorcycle. He further deposed that the truck was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A and the truck number was DL1LA 7551. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, he sent rukka to PS through Ct. Dhirender and got registered the FIR. He further deposed that Ct. Dhirender returned to the spot along with FIR copy as well as rukka and Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.18 14:13:54 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 11 of 29 handed over the same to him and thereafter, he prepared site plan Ex.PW6/B at the instance of complainant. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, he seized RC, DL, and other documents of both the vehicles. He further deposed that he prepared seizure memo Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D and thereafter, he along with Ct. Dhirender and accused Anil went to Hospital for medical examination of accused. PW6 further deposed that medical examination of the accused was conducted and he returned to the PS. He further deposed that accused has produced a surety and thereafter, he released him on bail. PW6 further deposed that thereafter, he gave notice Ex. PW2/A under Section 133 MV Act to the owner of the truck and mechanical inspection of both the vehicles were conducted at his request. He further deposed that the truck and motorcycle were released on superdari at the order of Court. PW6 further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the charge sheet and filed before the Court. He further deposed that he can identify the accused, if shown to him. The witness has correctly identified the motorcycle and truck from 9 photographs shown to him.
10.1. PW6 was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state, after seeking permission form court, wherein he deposed that he cannot recall the correct number of the truck, however correct number of the truck is DL1LP 7551, when he was asked leading question in that regard. He was asked a leading question regarding registration number of motorcycle to which he stated he had written the correct number in the file; however, he could not recall the motorcycle number due to lapse of time. PW6 further deposed that the motorcycle number mentioned in the file Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:14:00 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 12 of 29 is correct. He admitted the fact that he had prepared arrest memo Ex.PW3/C and personal search memo Ex.PW3/D. PW6 further correctly identified the documents of truck as well as DL of the accused.
10.2. During the course of trial PW6 was cross-
examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused wherein he deposed that he had received information about DD entry from DO and he reached at the spot at about 08:50 AM on motorcycle. He further deposed that the motorcycle was lying in the accidental condition and its lights of the front and hammer guard were damaged. He further deposed that public persons were present there and one more person apart from the complainant was ready to give his statement. PW6 further deposed that he does not remember if he had written the statement of that person. He further deposed that the complainant was not injured in the present case and he had prepared the site plan at the spot. He further deposed that he cannot tell who has beaten the accused. He further deposed that he did not take any action and he does not know if the complainant had beaten the accused or not. He further deposed that he does not remember what injuries were sustained by accused Anil at his body. PW6 admitted the fact that accused had offered to compensate the injured and the accused was taken to Police Station from Hospital. He further deposed that accused has not given any compensation to the complainant and he had prepared rukka at the spot. He further deposed that he left the spot at about 01:30 PM. PW6 denied the suggestion that no such incident had happened. He further deposed that accused was apprehended at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he is Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:14:06 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 13 of 29 deposing falsely or that the accused is falsely implicated in the present case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSON
11. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused person to personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement of accused was recorded without oath on 16.12.2025 under section 313 Cr. PC. He stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused submitted that he does not want to lead defence evidence and the same was closed.
ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld. counsel for the accused person at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration of the material appearing on record.
13. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She has argued that PW-2 has deposed that he in his reply to the notice U/s 133 MV Act has stated that accused was driving the vehicle on date of incident and he was fired after the incident. It is further submitted that from testimony of PW3 it is evident that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in zig-zag manner and the dumper came in a very high speed and hit his motorcycle. It is further submitted that PW3 has deposed that accused ran away after causing accident and the accused as well as offending vehicle have been identified by the accused. It is further submitted that the accused was under intoxication at the time of accident and same is evident from MLC of accused. It is further Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:14:12 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 14 of 29 submitted the fact of driving of offending vehicle, in rash and negligent manner, has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Further, the other evidence on record as corroborated the version of the eyewitness and the offences are proved beyond any doubt. As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the said offences.
14. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused person has argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel has argued that PW-3 has deposed that the time of incident was in early morning hours and it is highly improbable that any person will be drunk at the that point of time. It is further argued that in the initial complaint and in the testimony of complainant there are contradictions regarding things that were damaged during accident. It is further submitted that PW3 has submitted during cross examination that his vehicle was insured. It is further submitted that PW4 has mentioned incorrect number of the dumper. It is further submitted that PW5 has in his cross examination stated that he does not remember exact date of incident and he has further deposed that there were public persons at the spot but no public person has been made a witness in present case. It is further submitted that PW6 did not remember the registration number of motorcycle and has wrongly mentioned the truck number. Ld. Counsel has submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of the eye- witnesses. It is argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be acquitted for the said offences.
Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHALANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.18 14:14:18 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 15 of 29 INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
15. The accused has been charged for the offences of rash driving on public way (S. 279 IPC) and driving under the influence of alcohol (S. 185 MV Act) in the present case. Whereas under section 279 IPC, the effect of rash or negligent driving likely to endanger human life or cause hurt etc. is in itself the offence and under section 185 MV Act, driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol has been made a punishable offence. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner, and while doing so the accused was under the influence of alcohol.
16. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 279 IPC & 185 MV Act which are as follows:
"279. Rash driving or riding on a public way: --Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with im- prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs--Whoever, while driving, or attempting to drive, a motor vehicle, --
(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or
(b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle.
shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.18 14:14:24 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 16 of 29 for term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both. Explanation. --For the purposes of this section, the drug or drugs specified by the Central Government in this behalf, by notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor vehicle."
17. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 279 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. That accident actually took place;
ii. that a vehicle was driven or ridden by the accused at the time of accident;
iii. that the accused was driving it on a public way; iv. the said vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner;
and v. Driving was such so as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
17.1. All the ingredients need to be established beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence, as well as in the light of judicial measurements and with the judicial interpretation as already established.
18. In order to prove the offences punishable under section 185 MV Act, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz., i. The act of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle:
This must be linked to the time of the alleged violation. Simply being near the vehicle isn't enough; control or operation is key; ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL Date: PANGHAL 2026.04.18 14:14:30 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 17 of 29 ii. Presence of alcohol or intoxicating substances beyond permissible limits: Alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood, determined by scientific test such as breath analyser; and iii. Linkage between the act and intoxication: The intoxicants must be such so as to make the accused incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle.
18.1. While the first ingredient needs to be established beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of eyewitnesses and circumstantial evidence, whereas the second and third ingredients need to be established with the aid of medical evidence.
19. Thus, the gravamen of the offences under sections 279 IPC is the act of accused, done with "rashness" or "negligence". The IPC does not define either of these terms.
However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by judicial pronouncements of superior courts. In Empress of India vs. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776 the term "rashness" was interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or recklessness towards then consequence of such act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rathnashavlvan vs. State of Karnataka (2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under:
"7. .... Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:14:37 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 18 of 29 prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
8. As noted above, "rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."
Similar observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Ansal vs. CBI (2014) 6 SCC 173. The standard of negligence was discussed in the said case, by observing, inter alia, as under: -
"58. In the case of "negligence" the courts have favoured a meaning which implies a gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge arises, it may be the imperative duty of the accused to have adopted. Negligence has been understood to be an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person would not do. Unlike rashness, where the immutability arises from acting despite the consciousness, negligence implies acting without such consciousness, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him. The immutability in the case of negligence arises from the neglect of the civil duty of circumspection."
Thus, rashness implies doing an act despite consciousness that it might result in injuries, negligence, on the other hand, means lack of reasonable care that a person placed in the effect situation ought to take, in order to avoid injuries. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:14:43 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 19 of 29
20. Furthermore, three judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pearl Beverages Ltd [2021] 14 S.C.R. 104:
2021 INSC 247 has observed, inter alia, as under:
"4.2 Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act creates a criminal offence. The short title of Section 185 undoubtedly proclaims that it purports to deal with driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs. The offence as far as driving by a drunken person is concerned, was built around breach of an objective standard, viz., the presence of alcohol in the driver in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood detected in a test of breath analyser. The Section mandates the proving of the objective criteria of presence of alcohol exceeding 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood in a test by a breath analyser. It is here that Section 203 of the Motor Vehicles Act becomes apposite. It empowers the police officer to require any person driving or attempting to drive motor vehicle in a public place to provide one or more specimen of breath for breath test, if Police Officer or Officer of Motor Vehicle Department has reasonable cause to suspect the driver has committed an offence u/s 185. Section 203(2) deals with the situation where the vehicle is involved in an accident in a public place. In such circumstances, on a Police Officer in uniform entertaining any reasonable cause to suspect that the person driving the vehicle, at the time of the accident, had alcohol in his blood, inter alia, he may require the person to provide specimen of his breath in the breath test in the manner provided. Section 203(6) declares that the result of the breath test made under Section 203 shall be admissible in evidence. Section 203 contemplates arrest without warrant being effected, if the test indicated the presence of alcohol in the breath test. Section 204 follows up on a person who is arrested under Section 203. It, inter alia, provides that a person who has been arrested under Section 203 is to provide to such medical practitioner as may be produced by such police officer, a specimen of his blood for a laboratory test, if either it appears to the police officer that the breath test reveals the presence of alcohol in the blood of such person or such person when given the opportunity to submit to a breath test, has refused, omitted or failed to do so. The result of the laboratory test is also made admissible. Section 185 deals with driving or attempting driving of a motor vehicle a person with alcohol in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml in blood which is detected in a test of breath analyser. Being a criminal offence, it is indisputable that the ingredients of the offence must be established as contemplated by law which means that the case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and evidence must clearly indicate the level of alcohol in excess of 30 mg in 100 ml blood and what is more such ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL Date: PANGHAL 2026.04.18 14:14:49 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 20 of 29 presence must be borne out by a test by a breath analyser. With effect from 01.09.2019, the following words have been added to Section 185, that is "or in any other test including laboratory test". [Paras 52, 53] [167-C-H; 168-A-E]
21. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The resumption of the notions of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that point was the guilt of accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in view the above legal standards. APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
22. Applying the abovementioned law as well as findings, it has to be examined whether the prosecution is able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has committed offences punishable U/s 279 IPC and 185 MVAct.
23. For the offence punishable U/s 279 IPC, it has to be seen that the onus is on prosecution to prove the ingredients. The first is that accident took place by the offending vehicle. The second is that offending vehicle was driven by the accused on a public way. The third is that offending vehicle was driven by the accused in a rash or negligent manner and the last is that due to such driving hurt or injury could have been caused to any person. Let us examine whether the ingredients, as mentioned above, for the offence punishable U/s 279 IPC have been proved by the prosecution or not.
23.1 Accident, Driving & Identification of accused: PW3 is the complainant as well as star witness of the prosecution and PW5 is an eyewitness, who is not related to PW3, in any sense. PW3 as well as PW5 have very categorically deposed that the accident took place and that the dumper bearing Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:14:56 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 21 of 29 no. DL1LP7551 has hit motorcycle of complainant. 1 From their testimony it is also evident that the accident took place on a public way and the same is corroborated from site plan Ex. PW6/B. Furthermore, PW2 is the owner of offending vehicle and he in his testimony has deposed that he has given reply Ex. PW2/A in his handwriting, to the notice U/s 133 MV Act, stating the accused was driving the offending vehicle on date of incident. Testimony of PW2 is corroborated from the testimony of PW3 as well as PW5, who have deposed that accused was driving the offending vehicle on date of incident. Furthermore, PW3 has correctly identified the accused in the court.
23.2. In view of the same, the burden fell upon the accused to show as to who was driving the vehicle, if he was not. He was given an opportunity to explain the same in his statement U/s 313 CrPC, but he chose to make only a plain and bald denial of his involvement in the said offence. He has not given any statement to rebut the testimony of PW2, PW3 and PW5. As per the settled legal position, the silence of the accused in this regard will work as an additional link in the chain of circumstances found against him.
23.3. However, certain points were raised by the Ld. Counsel for accused, in his defence, such as there are contradictions in FIR and testimony of PW3 regarding things that were destroyed during accident and the fact the PW4 has mentioned wrong number of offending vehicle. It is further pointed out by accused that PW5 has deposed that there were 1 PW3 has deposed that on 06.08.2017 at about 6:00 P.M., he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration No. DLISAB-0238 outside his house and at around 8:30 P.M., he came outside his house and saw that one dumper bearing No. DLILP-7551 came in a very high speed and hit his motorcycle. PW3 further deposed that the driver of the said dumper was driving the abovesaid truck in zigzag manner and due to the hitting from the dumper, his motorcycle got damaged. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:15:02 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 22 of 29 many public persons, but no other public person has been made a witness in present case. It has been further pointed out that the IO did not remember registration number of vehicle and has wrongly mentioned the number of offending vehicle. It is further pointed out that PW5 was not able to tell the date of incident. As such it is the defence of accused that there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
23.4. Perusal of testimony of PW4 reveals that he has mentioned the registration number of offending vehicle as DL1P7551, whereas the complete number is DL1LP7551. Thus, it cannot be said that the witness has mentioned wrong number of the vehicle, rather the number of vehicle which was told by PW4 was not complete. Furthermore, PW6 has also mentioned the registration number of offending vehicle as DL1LA7551. The last 4 digits of offending vehicle have been deposed correctly by PW4 as well as PW5 and their testimonies are corroborated by PW2 and PW3. Furthermore, testimony of PW1 also reveals that he had conducted mechanical inspection of offending vehicle. Furthermore, PW4 and PW6 have identified the offending vehicle form the photographs on record. The offending vehicle was also identified by its owner PW2 as well as by the complainant PW3.
23.5. It is further pointed out on behalf of accused that PW5 was not able to tell the date of incident in his cross examination. Perusal of testimony of PW5 reveals that he has deposed that the accident took place on a Sunday in the year 2017 and the date of incident was a Sunday. Thus, if testimony of PW5 is read in light of testimonies of all other witnesses, the Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:15:10 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 23 of 29 same is corroborated by them. PW5 is an independent public person. Moreover, the testimony of PW1 as well as PW5 is of high value as they are independent witnesses and it is not the case that accused was previously known to the witnesses or there was some enmity between them and there is no reason for them to falsely framed the accused and to shield the real culprit. [Shamim vs. State of NCT of Delhi (AIR 2018 SC 4529) relied upon].
24. It is pertinent to mention the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera vs. State of Odisha, 2017 SCC Online SC 1336 that the conviction can be based on the testimony of single eyewitness if he or she passes the test of reliability and that is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Veer Singh & Others vs State of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 455 observed as under:
"Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been proved under section 134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of single witness provided, he is wholly reliable."
The prosecution does not require number of eye witnesses to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if there is one eyewitness and his testimony is up to the mark, the conviction can be based upon the same. In Namdeo vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under: ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:15:16 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 24 of 29 "In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, this Court held that even where a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call for corroboration. "It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs." In Anil Phukan v. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 : JT 1993 (2) SC 290, the Court observed;
"Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the single eye witness is not found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have an interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the courts find that the single eye witness is a wholly unreliable witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of corroboration can cure that defect."
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court has pointed out in a catena of judgments that minor inconsistencies not going to the root of the matter, are of no consequence. In Brahm Swaroop vs. State of UP (2011) 6 SCC 288, it was observed, inter alia, as under -
"32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution's case, may not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions."
Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth, exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details, ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:15:23 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 25 of 29 minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of witnesses. (See: State of UP vs. MK Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505, State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash (2007) 12 SCC 381, State vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 and Prithu vs. State of HP (2009) 11 SCC 588)"
26. Thus, from the testimony of the eyewitness PW3 and PW5 as well as in light of above mentioned settled legal precedents the fact of accident is proved beyond any reasonable doubt and it is also proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on a public way at the time of accident.
27. Rashness or Negligence: To prove the rashness and negligence the prosecution has examined primarily three witnesses i.e., PW2, PW3 and PW5. PW2 has deposed that the accused was fired after this incident. PW3 has categorically deposed that accused was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed and in zig zag manner. PW3 further deposed that after hitting the motorcycle, the accused reversed the offending vehicle in a high speed and thereafter, accelerated the vehicle and ran away. PW5 has also deposed that the accused was driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and has first moved the vehicle in forward direction and then in back direction.
28. In order to ascertain whether the manner of driving the offending vehicle was indeed rational negligent, the surrounding circumstances are to be considered. The accident took place after sunrise in month of August. PW3 deposed that the accident took place around 08:30 A.M. in the month of August. It is not the case of the defence that there was low visibility owing to weather conditions. The most important factor is that the offending vehicle was being driven on a public road Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:15:29 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 26 of 29 and it was also driven in backward direction, as evident from testimony of PW3 and PW5. The Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017 provide that no motor vehicle shall be driven on to a public road in the reverse direction. The relevant regulation is reproduced below: -
18. Restrictions on driving backwards (in reverse direction).-
(1) No driver of a motor vehicle shall drive the vehicle backwards (in the reverse direction) on a road or in a parking or any other public place: Provided that the driver shall while driving backwards ensure that the backward movement of the vehicle does not in any manner endanger the safety of, or cause undue inconvenience to, the other road users and that such reverse movement is for a distance and duration that may be reasonably necessary to turn around the vehicle. (2) No motor vehicle shall be driven on to a public road in the reverse direction.
(3) No motor vehicle shall be driven backwards into a road designated as "ONE WAY".
29. Injury caused to Complainant: It is further case of prosecution that the accused has caused damage to the motorcycle of the complainant. Section 44 of IPC defined injury as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.2 From the testimonies of PW3 and PW5 it is evident that the accused had hit the offending vehicle with the motorcycle of complainant and has thereby caused harm to the property of complainant. Thus, the present ingredient also stands established by the prosecution.
30. In view of the above narration, this court has no hesitation to hold that all the essential ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 279 IPC are fulfilled in the present case.
31. For the offence punishable U/s 185 MV Act, it has to be seen that the onus is on prosecution to prove the ingredients. The primary ingredient that is required to be proved 2 "Injury".--The word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, Digitally signed by ANKUR in body, mind, reputation or property. PANGHAL ANKUR PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18 14:15:36 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 27 of 29 by the prosecution by way of scientific evidence that alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood was present in the blood of accused. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the oral testimony of PW3 and PW5 who have deposed that the accused was in intoxicated condition and has also relied upon the MLC of accused, in which it has been mentioned that smell of alcohol was coming from breath of accused. However, the said MLC was never tendered in evidence and was not exhibited during the trial. Further, the doctors who prepared the MLC were never examined as witness, as they were not made witness by the IO, in list of witnesses filed with the chargesheet. Furthermore, if even if the MLC would have been exhibited, that would not have been sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts, as no breath analyser test was conducted. In the absence of breath analyser test it could not be determined as to how much quantity of alcohol was present in the blood of accused. Thus, the primary ingredient required to prove the offence punishable U/s 185 MV Act has not been established. Therefore, the rest of ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 185 MV Act are not discussed.
CONCLUSION
32. In view of the above discussion, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 279 IPC beyond any iota of doubt. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the required threshold has been met by the prosecution and it has been able to successfully prove that the accused person has committed the offence under Section 279 IPC. The accused person has failed to Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.18 14:15:42 +0530 Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 28 of 29 punch any holes on material aspects in the case set up by the prosecution, despite detailed cross examination of the witnesses. The star witnesses of the prosecution, i.e. the complainant, has deposed categorically and cogently about the commission of offence by the accused person, despite being subjected to lengthy cross examination. The inconsistencies brought out by the accused persons in the case of the prosecution are minor and do not go to the root of the matter. The defence of the accused persons of false implication remains unproved. However, the evidence qua the commission of offence punishable U/s 185 MV Act is insufficient.
33. Resultantly, the accused person namely ANIL KUMAR SINGH S/o SH. DEV NANDAN SINGH is hereby found guilty and is CONVICTED of the offence punishable under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, he is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
34. The convict be heard on point of sentence separately.
35. Copy of the judgment be provided free of cost to the convict, forthwith.
Announced in open court on 18.04.2026 in the presence of the convict. The judgment contains 29 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:15:48 +0530
(ANKUR PANGHAL)
JMFC-05, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
18/04/2026
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 29 of 29