IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT State v. [ENTITY] FIR No. 169/2013 PS Mianwali Nagar U/[SECTION] [ACT] & [SECTION] [ACT] JUDGMENT
Sr. No. of the case : 89/02/16 New case No. : 61570/16 Date of Institution : 31.03.2016 Date of Commission of Offence : 05.07.2013 Name of the complainant : Sh. [ENTITY] Name & address of the accused : 1). [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o H.No.112, Block H-3, Sultan Puri, Delhi 2). [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o H.No.33, Bhagwan Buddha Apartment, Pitam Pura, Delhi Offence complained of : U/[SECTION] [ACT] & [SECTION] [ACT] Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Acquitted for commission of offence u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Both the accused persons separately convicted for commission of offence u/[SECTION] [ACT] on pleading guilty. Date on which reserved for judgment : 25.01.2017 Date of announcing of judgment : 25.01.2017 BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION ALLEGATIONS
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT].
FIR No. 169/2013 u/[SECTION] [ACT]
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 05.07.2013 at about 11:30 PM at Udyog Nagar Metro station, Rohtak Road, Peera Garhi, Delhi, accused [ENTITY] was driving a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SW-7779 in a rash and negligent manner, thereby hit against one pedestrian namely Sh. [ENTITY]. Due to the accident victim Sh. [ENTITY] received grievous injuries. During the investigation it was revealed that offending vehicle was not insured, and the same was in the name of accused [ENTITY].
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under [SECTION] [ACT] was filed. The accused persons were summoned to face trial and they were supplied the copy of charge sheet as per [SECTION] [ACT]
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a notice for the offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] & [SECTION] [ACT] was served on accused [ENTITY] and notice for the offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT] served on accused [ENTITY]. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During trial both the accused persons pleaded guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Both of them were separately convicted for the offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT] and sentenced.
6. In order to prove the offence u/[SECTION] [ACT], prosecution has cited 13 witnesses of which PW/injured Sh. [ENTITY] is the only eye witness being victim in the present case. PW Sh. [ENTITY] remained absent despite issuance of summons through DCP concerned. He was the only witness to prove rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. Remaining witnesses are formal or police witnesses and none of them is the witness of accident.
7. Prosecution has examined only one witness in support of its case i.e PW1 SI FIR No. 169/2013 u/[SECTION] [ACT] [ENTITY].
8. PW1 SI [ENTITY] stated that On 05.07.2013 he was posted at PS Mianwali Nagar as ASI. On that day on receipt of DD no.56A Ex.PW1/A regarding accident, he alongwith Ct. [ENTITY] reached at the place of accident near Metro Station Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, Peera Garhi, Delhi. At the spot it was transpired that injured was removed to SGM Hospital by one PCR van. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. [ENTITY] reached at SGM Hospital, where he received MLC of injured [ENTITY] and thereafter, he recorded the statement of complainant/injured [ENTITY], the same is Ex.PW1/B. It is stated that on the statement of injured, he prepared the tehrir Ex.PW1/C and the same was handed over to Ct. [ENTITY] for the registration of FIR. On the basis of which present case FIR was registered. After registration of FIR, Ct. [ENTITY] returned at the spot and handed over to him original tehrir and copy of FIR. As the registration number of motorcycle was given by the injured in his complaint, notice U/[SECTION] [ACT] was served on the registered owner of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-8SW-7779, the notice is Ex.PW1/D. In the reply of notice the registered owner of motorcycle stated that on 05.03.2012, the offending motorcycle was driven by accused [ENTITY]. This witness correctly identified both the accused persons. The portion of reply is at point B on Ex.PW1/D. It is stated that on 17.07.2013, accused [ENTITY] was produced by accused [ENTITY] and he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/E. On 17.07.2013, the Driving Licence of accused [ENTITY] was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. The registered owner of the motorcycle was asked about the insurance of the offending motorcycle but he failed to produce any insurance. On the same day the motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G. The site plan Ex.PW1/H was prepared. On 20.07.2013, the mechanical inspection of the offending motorcycle bearing FIR No. 169/2013 u/[SECTION] [ACT] registration no. DL-8SW-7779 was conducted and the report of the same was placed on record, the copy of report is Ex.PW1/J. It is stated that after collecting the MLC result and verification of the documents of offending motorcycle, charge sheet was placed against both the accused before the Court. This witness correctly identified the photographs of offending motorcycle bearing registration no.DL-8SW-7779 to be of the offending motorcycle, the photographs are Ex.P1 (colly).
9. On a number of occasions summons were issued to PW [ENTITY] (victim/eye witness), however the same have been received back unexecuted on every occasion. Even the summons issued to him through DCP concerned remained unserved. Accordingly, name of this witness was dropped from the list of witnesses vide order dated 25.01.2017. All the other remaining witnesses are formal witnesses and none of them is a witness to the accident.
10. As the only eye witness/ injured i.e PW [ENTITY] has remained unserved even through DCP concerned, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the accused. The testimony of all the remaining witnesses together is insufficient to prove the allegations against the accused qua offences u/[SECTION] [ACT]. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled [PRECEDENT], that "in case where there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction, the valuable time of the court should not be wasted for holding a trial only for the FIR No. 169/2013 u/[SECTION] [ACT] purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on the future date". Hence vide a separate order, PE was closed and statement of accused dispensed with.
11. In "[PRECEDENT] the Honorable Supreme Court while commenting upon the right to speedy justice observed:
22. Is it at all necessary to have limitation bars terminating trials and proceedings? Is there no effective mechanism available for achieving the same end? The [ACT], as it stands, incorporates a few provisions to which resort can be had for protecting the interest of the accused and saving him from unreasonable prolixity or laxity at the trial amounting to oppression. [SECTION], in [SECTION] of [ACT], on Trial Summons - cases, empowers the Magistrate trying summons cases instituted otherwise than upon complaint, for reasons to be recorded by him, to stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, having effect of discharge. This provision is almost never used by the Courts.
12. It has been held that the Courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and can put an end to them by making appropriate orders, to stop proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.
13. In view of the above discussion and in the light of the above cited judgment, the Court is of the view that it needs to exercise its power under [SECTION] [ACT] qua offences u/[SECTION] [ACT] to make the ends of justice meet, and stop the proceedings against the accused. Recording of statement of accused under [SECTION] [ACT] is also dispensed with.
Final Order
14. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under [SECTION] FIR No. 169/2013 u/[SECTION] [ACT] [ACT] are that there must be rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. For an offence under [SECTION], the act of accused must be rash and negligent, which should be responsible for the grievous injury caused to the injured/victim.
15.The only eye witness of the accident in question i.e. victim Sh. [ENTITY] remained unserved through worthy DCP concerned and there is no other eye witness of the accident in question. Thus, there is no witness available who can testify about rashness and negligence on the part of the accused. In these circumstances in the light of the aforesaid discussion and cited judgments, the court while protecting the right of the accused to have speedy justice invokes the power conferred upon it under [SECTION] of [ACT] to stop the proceedings against accused [ENTITY] qua offences u/[SECTION] [ACT] and hereby releases the accused [ENTITY] under [SECTION] [ACT], which shall have the effect of acquittal as one of the material witness i.e. SI [ENTITY] has been examined.
16. Previous bail/surety bond has been extended/accepted in terms of [SECTION] [ACT] File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 25.01.2017 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 6 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 169/2013 u/[SECTION] [ACT]