Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

treatment. Ergo, the statement of the complainant could not be recorded. However, upon her statement being recorded, the complainant inter alia proclaimed that on 10.05.2013 at around 09:15 a.m., she was taking her brother/deceased for some interview at some NGO near Lakshmi Nagar (दिनांक 10-5-13 को समय ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL 2025.09.22 17:00:36 +0530 करीब 9:15 ए०एम० बजे मैं अपने भाई अजय भूषण को मदर डेरी, लक्ष्मी नगर के पास किसी एन०जी०ओ० में को-ओरडीनेटर की पोस्ट के लिए इन्टरव्यू दिलवाने ले जा रही थी). As per the complainant, while waiting at DBG Road Dispensary bus stand, bus with route no. 309 proceeding towards Kalyanpuri reached there, which was heavily occupied (डी०बी०जी० रोड डिसपेन्सरी बस स्टे ण्ड पर खडी थी। तभी वहां डी०टी०सी० की रूट नॅ 0 309 की बस जो कल्याणपुरी की ओर जा रही थी आयी जिसमें ज्यादा भीड थी।). It was further proclaimed by the complainant that she and her brother, somehow managed to enter inside the said bus and while the driver closed the rear gate, left hand of the deceased got caught in the said gate, however, the said bus proceeded ahead (हम दोनों भाई बहन किसी तरह बस में पीछे वाले गेट से चढे जो ड्राइवर द्वारा बस का पिछे वाला गेट बन्द करने पर मेरे भाई अजय भूषण का बांया हाथ गेट में फं स गया तथा बस चल पडी।). As per the complainant, as the other passengers of the bus, raised an alarm, the driver thereof opened the rear gate, leading to the deceased falling from the bus and sustaining injury on his head (इस बस में मौजूदा अन्य सवारियों द्वारा शोर मचाने पर ड्राइवर ने चलती बस का पिछे वाला गेट खोल दिया जिससे मेरा भाई अजय चलती बस से नीचे गिर गया तथा उसके सिर में चोट आयी). Markedly, the complaint further chronicles that the complainant jumped from the moving vehicle to save the deceased, however, she fell on the road on her side, sustained injury and got semi-conscious (जो अपने भाई को बचाने के लिए मैं भी चलती बस से कू द पडी तथा सडक पर पीठ के बल तिरछा गिरी जिससे मेरी पीछ पर व दायें पैर पर चोट आयी तथा मैं सेमी कनसीयस हो गयी।). Upon regaining consciousness, as per the complainant, she found herself in the said Hospital. Consequently, on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, the instant FIR came to be registered, and investigation ensued.

17. Therefore, being wary of the principles hereinunder noted, this Court would now proceed with the appreciation of the material placed on record, in order to determine whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case/charges against the accused/appellant, beyond reasonable doubt in the instant case. In particular, to determine whether the finding of appellant's guilt can be reached beyond a pale of doubt in the facts and circumstances brought forth, as has been determined by the Ld. Trial Court. At the outset, this Court deems it pertinent to refer to the deposition of the complainant/Ms. Vidhya Sinha /PW-1, who deposed about the incident in question and the role of the appellant herein. Relevantly, as per PW-1/the complainant, on 10.05.2013 at around 09:15 a.m., she was present at DBG Dispensary Bus Stand along with her brother, deceased Ajay Bhushan. As per PW-1, they were proceeded for Mother Dairy, Laxmi Nagar for deceased's interview for a post of coordinator. It was further proclaimed by PW-1 that one DTC Bus of route no. 309, en-route Kalyanpuri Digitally signed by ABHISHEK ABHISHEK GOYAL GOYAL Date:

2025.09.22 17:01:48 +0530 handed over the said sheets to the police officials/IO. Consequently, even PW-7 was declared hostile and cross- examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.

20. Here, this Court deems it further pertinent to make reference to the deposition of PW-6/Balwan Singh, who inter alia deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that at the time of the incident, he was working as driver in DTC on contract basis and that his badge no. of DTC was 2188. Further, as per PW-6, on 10.05.2013, he was working in DTC and posted at Millennium Depot, driving bus no. DL-1PC-8285, route no. 309, from Anand Parbat to Kalyan Puri. As per PW-6, the said bus was green color, low floor. It was further testified by PW-6 that on 10.05.2013, at around 09:00 a.m., he started on his said bus from Anand Parbat till Kalyan Puri and at about 09:20 a.m., when they stopped the bus at Hari Har Mandir, Kamla Market, one passenger boarded his bus and informed him/PW-6 that sometime earlier, one male passenger and one lady passenger got injured, while boarding the DTC, green color, low floor bus route no. 309, of Millennium Depot. Further, as per PW-6, when the passenger was boarding the said bus, the hand of male passenger got stuck in the door and upon the passengers raising noise, the bus driver opened the door of the said bus, while the same/said bus was on move. Consequently, as per PW-6, he was informed that the said person, whose hand was stuck in the door of the bus fell down and the lady behind him also jumped from the bus. As per PW-6, he was informed by the said passenger that the male passenger received several injuries, while the lady passenger received less injuries. It was further proclaimed by PW-6 that the said passenger, who boarded his bus, also gave his phone number to him/PW-6 and asked him in case the said bus ABHISHEK GOYAL 2025.09.22 17:01:51 +0530 driver was found, his/passenger's number should be shared with him. It was further testified by PW-6 that the crowd, which had gathered at the spot, were asking the said lady to get the case registered against the driver. Correspondingly, as per PW-6, he waited for 3-4 days for any news of the accident, however, he/PW-6 did not get any news regarding any accident. PW-6 further deposed before the Ld. Trial Court that he did not remember the phone number of the said passenger/informer, however, he/PW-6 had informed the IO that the said person/passenger had informed him/PW-6 that the aforementioned bus had gone prior to his/PW-6's bus. Notably, despite such assertion by PW-6, the appellant opted not to cross examine the said witness.

2025.09.22 17:02:30 +0530 the part of deposition of PW-3/Sh. Vinay Kumar, to reach a conclusion that the accident occasioned due to offending vehicle and that the appellant was driving the said vehicle at the relevant point in time. However, while reaching the said conclusion, Ld. Trial Court read the factum of appellant's not cross-examining PW-6/Sh. Balwan by the appellant against the appellant, without considering that notwithstanding such omission on the part of the appellant, the prosecution, in the considered opinion of this Court, has not been able to prove its case/charges, beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant herein. In this regard, this Court deems it pertinent to note that considering that it is the prosecution's own case that the appellant and PW-6/Sh. Balwan were plying on the same route on the date of alleged incident, though with a certain degree of gap/time gap. Ergo, under such circumstances, it was incumbent on the prosecution to produce the GPS records of both the vehicles on record of the Ld. Trial Court. However, the same was not done. Consequently, under such circumstances, notwithstanding such proximity of time, in which the said vehicles are stated to be commuting on the same route on the date of alleged incident, Ld. Trial Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, erroneously discarded the variation in the time of commission of alleged incident, i.e., around 09:15 a.m. on 10.05.2013, as deposed by PW-1 in her testimony and that of the presence of the offending vehicle at the said spot around 09:04 a.m. on the said date, as per the said vehicle's GPS records, terming the same as minor variations and unneeded exactitude of time in the deposition of victim. Apposite in this regard to reproduce the relevant extracts from the impugned judgment, as under;