Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Parveen Kumar (here-in-after referred to as the accused), pursuant to charge sheet filed qua him under Section 279/338 IPC (hereinafter IPC for sake of brevity), subsequent to the investigation carried out at P.S: Kapashera in FIR no.08/2017.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06.01.2017, at about 6:30 p.m, at main Najafgarh Bijwasan Road, near Prakashpuri Ashram, Ashram Morh, Bijwasan, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Kapashera, the accused was found driving one Tata Ace 'Chhota Hathi' bearing registration number DL 1LP 2675, in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. Due to this act of the accused, his aforesaid vehicle struck against one TVS motorcycle bearing no. DL 4S CM 4192, of the complainant namely Sh. Jagdish, which was being driven by the complainant at the relevant time. Owing to the aforesaid collision, the complainant fell down from his motorcycle, resulting in grievous injury to him. Consequently, an FIR was registered in the present case and after investigation, the police filed the present charge sheet against the accused for commission of offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:

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

19. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused Parveen 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:-

24. To further add to the woes of the prosecution, one personal namely Natesh Kumar, stated to be an eye witness in the case and mentioned at serial no. 2 of the list of prosecution witnesses, was not examined on behalf of the State during trial, as it was observed in order-sheet dated 28.01.2019, that the said witness had stated during his briefing in Court that he was not present at the spot and was in fact, told about the incident accident in question by complainant Jagdish. Consequently, said PW Natesh was dropped from the list of prosecution witnesses. Other than this, no public person as been joined in and examined as a witness in the present case, despite the fact that the accident in question had occurred at a public place. This court is conscious of the legal position that non-joining of independent witnesses cannot be the sole ground to discard or doubt the prosecution case, as has been held in Appabhai and another v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696. However, evidence in every case is to be sifted through in light of the varied facts and circumstances of each individual case. As observed above, the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses in the present case is not worthy of credit. In such a situation, evidence of an independent witness would have rendered the much needed corroborative value, to the otherwise uncompelling case of the prosecution, as discussed above. The absence of independent witness of the accident in question and the dropping of the public/eye witness namely Natesh during trial, further raises suspicion about the genuineness of the allegations and the actual manner of occurrence of the accident. Not only this, the IO did not make an endeavor to interrogate and examine the person namely Johnny, mentioned by the complainant in his statement given under section 164 Cr.P.C., which is a serious lapse on his part. Furthermore, during his cross-examination, the IO also admitted that he made no effort to investigate and determine the name of the person with whom he had spoken over the call with respect to DD no. 24A. In addition to this, the lackadaisical attitude of the IO in the case is also apparent from the fact that during his testimony, PW7/IO SI Parveen Rathee, who was the subsequent IO in the case, failed to disclose as to on what basis section 338 IPC was added in the case, since the medical documents of the complainant/victim placed on record, bear no mention of nature of injury suffered by complainant to be grievous in nature.

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

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

Announced in the open court
on 18.11.2022, in presence of                    Digitally signed
accused and Ld. Counsel for                      by APOORVA

accused.                                 APOORVA RANA
                                                 Date:
                                         RANA    2022.11.18
                                                 16:19:58
                                                 +0530

                                      (APOORVA RANA)
                            M.M-10/Dwarka Courts/18.11.2022