Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. Notice for offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC & 3/181 of M.V. Act was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It is pertinent to mention here that though notice was served to accused for offence u/s 279/338 IPC & 3/181 of M.V. Act, the corresponding order-sheet of the said date, recorded by Ld. Predecessor Judge, indicates that notice was served to accused for offence u/s 279/338 IPC only. Further, even otherwise, the contents/ingredients constituting offence u/s 3/181 MV Act are not mentioned in the said notice dated 08.08.2016, served to the accused.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:

20. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and accused have been heard. The evidence and documents on record have been carefully perused.

21. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused Raj Kumar has been indicted for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC. Section 279 IPC provides punishment for offence of driving a vehicle 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; and section 338 IPC provides punishment for causing grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others. To drive home the guilt of the accused under section 279/338 IPC in road accident cases, following ingredients are required to be proved:- a). That the accused was the person who was driving the offending vehicle at the time when the accident occurred. b). That the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. c). That grievous hurt to the victim was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries suffered by way of rash and negligent driving of the accused. It must be causa causans - the immediate cause, and not enough that it may be causa sine qua non - proximate cause. (Ref. Suleman Rahiman Mulam v. State of Maharasthra AIR 1968 SC 829; Ambalal D Bhatt v State of Gujarat AIR 1972 SC 1150).

28. As a sequitur to the above, this Court is of the opin- ion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the act of rashness or negligence on part of accused in the present case. Though, it appears that the victim has suffered injuries as men- tioned on record, the prosecution has not been able to prove with certitude that the same were a consequence of the accident that had occurred due to rash and negligent act of the accused. In view of the glaring embellishments in the statements of the pros- ecution witnesses, the possibility that the accused has been falsely implicated for the aforesaid offence, cannot be ruled out and prosecution cannot be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accident in question had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. At this stage, it is here by reiter- ated that though notice was served to accused for offence u/s 279/338 IPC & 3/181 of M.V. Act, the corresponding order-sheet of the said date, recorded by Ld. Predecessor Judge, indicates that notice was served to accused for offence u/s 279/338 IPC only. Further, even otherwise, the contents/ingredients constitut- ing offence u/s 3/181 MV Act are not mentioned in the said no- tice dated 08.08.2016, served to the accused. Moreover, no alle- gations qua offence u/s 3/181 MV Act are forthcoming on behalf of the prosecution even remotely in the present case, either though documentary evidence or through oral evidence. Accord- ingly, offence u/s 3/181 MV Act is also not proved to be made out against the accused.

30. Accordingly, this court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act and holds the accused not guilty of commission of the said offence. Accused Raj Kumar is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 279/338 IPC and u/s 3/181 MV Act.

31. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the accused.

Announced in the open court
on 21.11.2022, in presence of                         Digitally signed
accused and Ld. Counsel for                           by APOORVA
                                                      RANA
accused.                                APOORVA       Date:
                                        RANA          2022.11.21
                                                      16:24:37
                                                      +0530

                                      (APOORVA RANA)
                            M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/21.11.2022