Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The accused Simranjeet Singh is facing trial for offences u/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act. The genesis of the prosecution story is that vide DD no. 10 A dated 02.10.2012, State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.

information regarding the incident in question was received at PS Dabri and pursuant thereto, the team of police comprising Ct. Rajender and ASI Ram Niwas went to the spot i.e. Dabri- Palam Road, Dashrath Puri Bus stand Delhi where one Santro car no. DL-2CW-0634 was found in an accidental state and the accused along with eye witness Neeraj Soni were also present at the spot. The accused was stated to be the driver of the alleged offending car and in the meantime, another information vide DD no. 23B was received qua the injured persons from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and thereafter, ASI Ram Niwas went to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital leaving the Ct. Rajender at the spot. The injured persons namely, Ram Singh and Uma Rani were found under treatment at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and they were stated to be unfit for giving their statements. The statement of eye witness Neeraj Soni was recorded by ASI Ram Niwas on the basis of which the FIR was registered. As per the version of eye witness Neeraj Soni, on 02.10.2012 at around 6:30 AM, while he was waiting for the passengers for his TSR at Dashrath Puri Bus Stand, then the santro car no. DL- 2CW-0634 which was driven by accused in rash and negligent manner at a high speed came from the side of Dabri and struck against the four persons who were sitting at the bus stop. The accused Simranjeet Singh was identified as the driver of the alleged offending santro car. After the registration of FIR, the investigation into the same began and the offending vehicle was seized by the police. The mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle was conducted and the MLC of injured persons were obtained. The injuries sustained by victim Uma Rani were opined as grievous in nature and offence u/s 338 IPC was added in FIR. It was informed to the police that on 02.11.2012, victim Ram Singh unfortunately passed away due to the injuries State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.

State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.

Further in Abdul Subhan (Supra), the decision of State of Karnataka Vs. Satish 1998 SCC (CRI) 1508 was also dis- cussed in which Hon'ble Supreme Court observed:-

"3. Both the trial court and the appellate court held the re- spondent guilty for offences under Section 337, 338 and 304A IPC after recording a finding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed". No specific finding has been recorded either by the trial court or by the first appellate court to the effect that the respondent was driving the truck either negli- gently or rashly. After holding that the respondent was driving the truck at a "high speed", both the courts pressed into aid the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor to hold the respondent guilty.

State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.

12. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused.

13. Whereas, in order to hold a person liable for offence u/s 338 IPC, the prosecution is also duty bound to establish that the rash or negligent act done by the accused has led to grievous injuries, on the person of another. In other words, in order to hold a person liable for offence u/s 338 IPC, it is necessary to establish that the injuries sustained by the victim are either grievous and same were a resultant consequence of the acts of rash or negligence of accused. Further, so as to hold a person liable for offence u/s 304A IPC, it is necessary to establish that the death of victim was a resultant consequence of rash or neg- ligent act of driving of vehicle by the accused and same was not a result of any other supervening cause. Whereas, to hold a person liable for offence u/s 146/196 MV Act, it is necessary to establish that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of the incident without holding a valid insurance policy.

20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court hereby holds accused not guilty for offence u/s 304A IPC and therefore, accused is hereby acquitted for the offence u/s 304A IPC. Whereas, the accused is held guilty for having committed offences u/s 279, 338 IPC and Section 146 r/w State Vs.Simranjeet Singh FIR No:385/12 U/s 279/338/304A IPC and 146/196 MV Act.

196 MV Act and he is hereby convicted for the offences u/s 279, 338 IPC and Section 146 r/w 196 MV Act.