Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case u/s 279/338 IPC.

2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 15.10.2010 at about 7.00 State v. Joginder Kumar U/s 279/338 IPC & 134/187 M V Act 1/12 FIR No. 305/10 PS Paschim Vihar pm, the injured namely Prem Singh was present at the Peeragarhi bus stop, Udyog Nagar, Paschim Vihar, Delhi. When his bus arrived at the bus stop and he came forward to board the bus, one car bearing no. DL-8CM-7359 which was being driven by the accused Joginder Kumar came from behind. The driver turned the car towards the injured and the front tyre of the car ran over his foot. The public stopped the car and asked the driver to take the injured to the hospital. However, the driver took the car towards Nangloi and asked the injured to get down from his car and fled away. The injured called on 100 number and PCR van took him to SGM hospital. The details of the car were obtained from the transport authority. On basis of the same, the accused was apprehended. Thus the accused is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 279/338 IPC & under Section 134/187 M V Act. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out.

3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C for offence under Section 279/338 IPC & under Section 134/187 M V Act was framed against him vide order dated 25.07.2014 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses i.e (1) Prem Singh (2) Ct. Balraj (3) Brijpal (4) HC Mahender Singh (5) Retired ASI Manni Ram (6) Raghubir Singh (7) SI Karan Singh. State v. Joginder Kumar U/s 279/338 IPC & 134/187 M V Act 2/12 FIR No. 305/10 PS Paschim Vihar

10. PW-4 Retired ASI Mani Ram deposed that on 11.11.2010 he was posted as ASI at Police Station City Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana. He was the investigating officer in the case FIR No. 646/10 under Section 279/337 IPC. He had seized the Santro car bearing no. DL-8CN-7359 along with driving license and the RC of the car. He handed over the copy of the same to the IO SI Karan Singh.

11. PW-2, 3 and 4 were not cross examined by the accused. State v. Joginder Kumar U/s 279/338 IPC & 134/187 M V Act 4/12 FIR No. 305/10 PS Paschim Vihar

28. In the case at hand, the testimony of the sole eye witness / injured PW-1 has given a trustworthy and reliable account of the incident and defence has not been able to impeach his credibility in the cross examination. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1. Since his testimony has remained unimpeached, the court is of the view that no further corroboration is required.
29. In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case. It has been successfully proved by the prosecution that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the accused and that the grievous injuries caused to PW-1 was a result of State v. Joginder Kumar U/s 279/338 IPC & 134/187 M V Act 11/12 FIR No. 305/10 PS Paschim Vihar such driving. It has also been proved that the accused did not provide medical aid to the injured and ran away after leaving him on the road. Hence, the accused is held guilty of the offence punishable u/s 279 & 338 Indian Penal Code and 134/187 Motor Vehicle Act. Accordingly, the accused stands convicted for offence under Section 279/338 Indian Penal Code & 134/187 Motor Vehicles Act.