Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 279/337 ipc in State vs . Sukhvir Singh on 2 February, 2016Matching Fragments
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:
The accused Sukhvir Singh has been sent to face trial under Section 279/337/338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) on the allegations that on 30.11.01 at about 7.15pm accused was driving a half body truck no. HR-46A-3089 at very high speed on wrong side and hit against TSR bearing no. HR-10PA-0301 near Mata Mansa Devi Marg, Road, no.24, Near Narela, Paposian in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger the human life and personal safety of others and thus FIR No. 448/01 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/338 IPC State Vs. Sukhvir Singh while driving in the said manner caused simple injuries on the person of Prem Lata, Bimla, Rajwanti, Amit and Jony and grievous hurt on the person of Smt. Kela and Baby Jyoti and thereby committed offences punishable U/s 279/337/338 IPC and on the basis of said allegations, present FIR bearing No.448/01was registered at PS Narela and the accused has been charged with the offences U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
16. PW13 is SI Sanjay Dahiya, No. D-184, Crime Branch, Prashant Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that on 30/11/01, on receipt of DD No. 2 B, he along with Ct. Ved Prakash reached at Mansha Devi road, near Sector A-6, Pocket 13 chowk, Narela, Delhi where they found one TSR No. HR-10PA-0301 and one half body truck bearing No. HR-46A-3089 in accidental condition and also met the TSR driver/ complainant Sri Niwas. He recorded FIR No. 448/01 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/338 IPC State Vs. Sukhvir Singh statement Ex.PW2/A of TSR driver, prepared rukka Ex.PW13/A, bearing his signature at point A and handed over the same to Ct. Ved Prakash who went to PS for registration of FIR. Thereafter, he called the photographer Pramod at the spot who took photographs of the spot from different angles. Ct. Ved Prakash came back at the spot after registration of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/B at the instance of complainant Sri Niwas and seized the vehicles vide memos Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/E and brought both the vehicles at the PS and deposited the same to the Malkhana. He further deposed that on information received by duty officer that injured had been admitted in BJRM hospital Jahangir Puri, he alongwith Ct. Ved Parkash reached at BJRM Hospital where he obtained MLCs of injured Kela Devi, Jyoti, Rajwanti, Bimla, Jony, Anil and Premlata. Nature of injury on the MLC of Rajwanti, Jony or Anil were opined as simple and opinion on the nature of injuries of other injured persons was not given by doctors. Thereafter, he recorded statement of all the injured persons and came back at the PS, registered owner Mahender Singh of the offending vehicle i.e. half body truck no. HR 46A 3089 came at the PS alongwith driver Sukhbir. Accused produced his driving licence which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he interrogated accused Sukhbir and in the meantime, eye witness/complainant Sri Niwas also came at the PS for getting released his TSR. Eye witness Sri Niwas identified the accused Sukhbir in the PS. Accused was arrested and personally search vide memos Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D bearing his signatures at point C. Thereafter, accused FIR No. 448/01 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/338 IPC State Vs. Sukhvir Singh was released on bail. He also got the mechanical inspection of both the vehicles conducted vide reports Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B bearing his signature at point B. He deposed that he deposited the MLCs in the hospital for obtaining opinion on the nature of injuries. Doctors opined nature of injuries as grievous on the MLC of injured Jyoti and Kela Devi. After completion of investigation charge sheet was prepared and filed in the court. During his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that he received DD NO. 2B at around 7:30 a.m. and reached the spot at around 7:40 a.m. The distance between PS and the spot is around 1 & 1/2 km. He went to the spot on motorcycle of Ct. Ved Prakash but did not remember its number. There was not much fog on the day of incident and it was not dense fog with visibility of around 50 meters. Public persons were also present at the spot. He further deposed that he recorded statement of Shri Niwas only at the spot. He asked some other persons but they refused to join the investigation. Ct. Ved Prakash took rukka at around 8:30 or 8:35 a.m. and came back at the spot at about 9:30 or 9:45 a.m. and till then he remained at the spot. He did not remember whether signature of Shri Niwas was obtained on the site plan or not. He reached at the hospital at around 10:30 a.m. Complainant Shri Niwas did not come with him to the hospital however, Ct.Ved Prakash was with him. There were 7-8 injured persons in the hospital. Shri Niwas did not tell him as to how many persons did not receive injuries and how many persons received injuries. He recorded statement of all the injured persons in the hospital. One or two injured persons were recalled in the hospital for obtaining opinion on their MLCs. He recalled those injured persons at the request of Doctors. He also stated FIR No. 448/01 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/338 IPC State Vs. Sukhvir Singh that he never served in the traffic police. He was not aware as per Motor Vehicle Act how many persons are allowed in a TSR. He denied the suggestion that more than six persons are allowed in TSR. He had not seized or seen the DL of the TSR driver. He denied the suggestion that TSR driver did not know how to drive the TSR or that accident occurred as the TSR was over crowded with passengers and therefore, TSR driver could not control the TSR and TSR got disbalanced and therefore, the accident occurred due to negligence of TSR driver. He further denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the investigation in a fair manner or that he had falsely implicated the accused in a present case or that this is a false case.
18. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the state as well as Ld. defence counsel for the accused and perused the entire record.
19. In the present matter, the accused has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 279/337/338 IPC. To prove a case U/s. 279/337/338 IPC against the accused, the prosecution has to prove the following facts:-
a) that the accused was found driving a vehicle bearing FIR No. 448/01 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/338 IPC State Vs. Sukhvir Singh registration no HR-46A-3089;
25. Therefore, after scanning the entire record and keeping in view the above discussion, in the absence of compelling and persuasive testimony of the eye witnesses on record, in my considered opinion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove FIR No. 448/01 PS Narela U/s. 279/337/338 IPC State Vs. Sukhvir Singh the present case against the accused and hence, the accused Sukhvir Singh is hereby acquitted from offences u/s 279/337/338 IPC.