Rajesh Kumar vs State Th:Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 28 September, 2011
4. The bone of contention in the appeal is the identity of the
appellant/convict as the one who caused the accident while driving
the aforesaid truck and the causing of the said accident due to
rash and negligent driving by him. The case of the accused as per
the suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses and statement
of accused u/s 313 CrPC, is that he was not driving the said truck
on the date of incident and had not caused the accident. As per
the case of the prosecution, there is only one eye witness PW7
Surender Kumar and that the said accident took place on
20.6.1998 at 10.15 pm and no eye witness was found at the spot or
at the hospital on the day of accident as admitted by the PW11 (IO)
in his cross examination and the said eye witness came into the
picture by reaching PS Dhaula Kuan on 22.6.1998 (two days after
the incident) and the IO recorded his statement. PW7 (eye witness)
in his cross examination has admitted that he was running a
CA No. 20/12. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State. Page No. 2 of 10.