Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Father of deceased Reema objected to the filing of the untrace DAR alleging that proper inquiry was not conducted by taking CCTV footage and also sought time to file objections to those untrace DARs. Thereafter, protest application/petition was filed on 17.09.2016 and the application was put up for consideration on 29.11.2016. ACP was summoned by the court on 29.11.2016 and matter was next posted for 07.01.2017, while the protest application was kept pending.

5. Thereafter, on 07.01.2017, two fresh DARs were filed by the Investigating Officer and treated as applications under Section 166 (4) of M.V. Act. As per the facts stated in these DAR, the registration number of the offending vehicle was disclosed during investigation as UP-14ET- 3992, Bus UPSRTC and the name of the driver was disclosed as Shyam Singh / R-1.

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

of the bus. There was no reason for the petitioner Sunil not to have given these respective details in his DCP complaint dated 27.07.2016 or Protest petition filed before the Tribunal on 17.09.2016, unless these details were not known to him and not disclosed by anyone to him. Hence, it is clear that even at the time of moving protest application, Mr. Sunil Kumar was not aware regarding any clue whatever of offending vehicle and merely with a view to faslely implicate any U.P. roadways bus, made improvement in his version by adding that in his protest application and his assertion to the effect that Ankit had disclosed to him part number of the bus or it being a UP roadway bus on the date of accident does not at all inspire confidence. He admitted in his cross-examination by counsel for R-2 that his protest application dated 17.09.2016 Ex. TW2/R21 does not mention the registration number of bus and suggestion was given to him that alleged offending vehicle was falsely implicated. Coming to the testimony of TW3 / ASI Rajesh Kumar, he disclosed that on visiting the spot of accident, only one scooty was found in the accidental condition and it was learnt that the injured had been taken to LBS Hospital, Delhi, he collected the MLC of Ankit and Reema. Ankit had suffered simple injuries and his statement Ex. PW3/B was recorded by TW3. No CCTV footage was available and no public person informed about the registration number of the offending vehicle. On the same day, an information was received from the GTB hospital that Reema expired during treatment. TW3 specifically deposed that he visited LBS hospital at 10 am and met both Ankit and Reema but none of their family members were there at the hospital. He also deposed that Ankit did not disclose the number of the bus as 3992 or the factum that it was a UP MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

number of bus only in his supplementary statement recorded on 20.12.2016. Now the question is, if Ankit had learnt the complete registration number of bus only after 2-3 days from the day of meeting Sunil Kumar in GTB Hospital i.e. 12.07.2016, what was the reason for intimating to the police after such a long gap on 20.12.2016 only. Further, this version is completely in contrast to the version of TW2 who in response to the Tribunal question as to when he had come to know about the registration number of the bus from Ankit Kumar after 2-3 days of the accident, why did he state in his application dated 28.07.2016 Ex. PW2/T2 that CCTV footage should be collected so that the evidence relating to the vehicle which had caused the accident, could be gathered, responded that "I moved the application so that complete registration number of the bus could be moved". PW2 / Ankit himself deposed that he had come to know about the registration number of the bus after 2 days of the accident and if it was true, there was no reason for the petitioners not to disclose the number to the police or even before the Tribunal till giving the protest application given by father of deceased Reema. It has come in the charge-sheet that on 29.11.2016, two complaints were given, one by petitioner Ankit and other by Mr. Sunil Kumar before the tribunal wherein the registration number of the offending vehicle was disclosed as 3392. It is further seen that after filing of protest application dated 17.9.2016 (wherein it was claimed by Mr. Sunil Kumar that the bus offending bus was UP Roadways bus pained in red and crèam colour and running on express service under UP roadways of Loni Depot), on 11.10.2016, a notice under section 91 Cr.P.C. was given to Manager Bus Depot, Loni Ghaziabad U.P to MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;

MACP No.392/19; Sunil Kumar Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors.

provide the details of buses which pass through Ghazi Pur Dairy farm road on 12.07.2016 and on 04.11.2016 the reply to the said notice was given and made a part of the case record. After about 02 months from the date of accident, Mr Sunil Kumar, who is not even an eye witness made a claim in protest petition that bus was a U.P. roadways bus. Further, it is strange that eye witness Ankit neither disclosed any description of the offending bus in the FIR nor made any complaint in writing to any senior police official immediately after the registration of FIR, if any important details were missed out in his complaint. Further, the complaint was signed by him and it is a matter of record that he has sustained simple injuries and hence he must have been in a fit state of mind at the time of giving of complaint to the police. Even if he missed out any important details in the complaint, nothing had stopped from informing to this to IO in writing about the part details as claimed to have been available with him but no such efforts were made by Mr. Ankit and Sunil Kumar. It was only after investigation was concluded and untrace reports were filed that as an afterthought, protest application was moved and even in the protest application, no registration number of the offending bus was provided. It is relevant here to mention that till giving a complaint to the DCP on 28.07.2016, Mr. Sunil Kumar was having suspicions over Mr. Ankit for not disclosing complete facts. The much delayed mechanical inspection report dated 02.01.2017 of offending vehicle shows some fresh damages but there is nothing on record to connect the same to the accident of the Scooty of the petitioner Ankit on 12.07.2016. R2W1 has deposed in his testimony that no accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle and further that the conductor of the bus was issuing MACP No.391/19; Ankit Vs. Shyam Singh & Ors;