Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 338 indian penal code in State vs . Vijay Singh on 28 July, 2022Matching Fragments
1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused Vijay Singh (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. 17/2017.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.01.2017, at about 10:00 a.m., in front of Modi Farm House, Bijwasan, Kapashera, New Delhi, the accused was found driving a vehicle / RTV bearing number DL 1VA 9362, 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 RTV struck against one motorcycle, bearing no. DL 9SS 5075, of the victim namely, Sh. Rahul Yadav, which was being driven by him. Owing to the aforesaid collision, the said victim fell down alongwith his motorcycle in front of the offending vehicle, 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.
3. Complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused. Notice for offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC was served upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Further, the accused, vide his statement u/s 294 Cr.P.C, had admitted the copy of FIR No. 17/2017 along with certificate u/s 65 B of IEA, which was exhibited as, Ex. P/A/1, DD No. 12A which was exhibited as, Ex P/A/2, mechanical inspection report of vehicle no. DL1VA9362 and DL9SZ5075, which was exhibited as, Ex P/A/6 (Colly), MLC no. 7474 of Rahul Yadav which was exhibited as Ex P/A/3, X-ray report of Rahul Yadav which was exhibited as Ex P/A/4 (colly), discharge summary of Yash Roop Hospital of injured Rahul Yadav which was exhibited as Ex P/A/5 and TIP proceedings dated 29.06.2017 which was exhibited as Ex P/A/7.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENT FINDINGS:
16. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP for State and accused have been heard. The evidence and documents on record have been carefully perused.
17. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by both the parties. Accused Vijay Singh 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. In the present case, in the opinion of this court, no such material contradictions / inconsistencies appear to have surfaced during testimony of the prosecution witnesses, as would impeach the credibility of version of prosecution and prove fatal to its case. The court has no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who have corroborated each other in all material aspects. The testimony of the victim in particular has remained untarnished and impeached. The contentions raised on behalf of the accused neither singularly nor holistically, shroud any doubt upon the version of the prosecution. As per the MLC, the injury sustained by the victim has been opined to be grievous in nature, thus, attracting the culpability of the accused for offence u/s 338 IPC as well. Further, once the case of the prosecution had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, it was incumbent upon the accused to rebut the same, which the accused has failed to do. The aforementioned leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has been able to duly prove its case against the accused, for offence punishable under sections 279/338 IPC, beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this court hereby, holds accused Vijay Singh guilty for commission of offence u/s 279/338 IPC.