Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

GUPTA 2023.08.05 15:42:09 +0530 3.1 PW-1 is injured Jitender. He is the eye witness of the incident. His testimony is material for decision of this appeal. Same shall be discussed in detail later on.
3.2 PW-2 is T.U. Siddiqui. He is a Mechanical Inspector. He has proved the mechanical inspection report of Honda Scooter bearing no. DL-3SAZ-1499 as Ex.PW2/A and that of Mahindra Bolero bearing no. DL-1LM-3069 as Ex.PW2/B. He could not be cross-examined on that day as lawyers were abstaining from work however, same is of no consequence as mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles were admitted by the appellant U/s 294 Cr.P.C. on 21.02.2017.
2023.08.05 15:45:25 +0530 scooter bearing no. DL3SAZ1499 in accidental condition. It is not in dispute that both these vehicle were seized by investigating agency vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D. Both the vehicles were examined by the mechanical inspector/PW-2 vide mechanical inspection reports Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B showing damages to both the vehicles. Those mechanical inspection reports have been admitted by the appellant U/s 294 Cr.P.C. on 21.02.2017. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein was driving the vehicle No. DL1LM3069 on the fateful day. PW-3 Mr. Hemant Kapoor who is admittedly owner of said vehicle has deposed that on that day of incident, the appellant was driving the vehicle in question. In this factual matrix, it was for the appellant to explain as to how his vehicle was found in accidental condition at the spot on that day. The burden of proving this fact was upon him U/s 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 
                                                                GUPTA      2023.08.05
                                                                           15:45:33
                                                                           +0530

view that site plan cannot be doubted with merely due to absence of signature of the injured.

20. MLC of PW-1 Jitender Ex.A-3 shows that he received simple injury from some blunt object. Postmortem report of the deceased Ex.A-4 shows that cause of death has been mentioned as craweo cerebral injury caused by blunt external forces which could be possible in road traffic accident. Both these documents have been admitted by the appellant U/s 294 Cr.P.C. The case of prosecution is that those injuries were caused due to incident in question and there is nothing on record to doubt the same.