[ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/16 IN THE COURT OF MS. BABITA PUNIYA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-06, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/2016 U/[SECTION] [ACT] PS: Mundka Date of institution of the case: 22.09.2017 Date on which judgment is reserved: Not reserved Date on which judgment is delivered: 18.12.2019 Unique I. D. No. 6046/2016 JUDGMENT
a) Date of commission of the offence : 18.07.2016
b) Name of the complainant : Head Constable [ENTITY]
c) Name of the accused and his parentage : [ENTITY], S/o Shri DharamSingh R/o Village Mankot, PO Ratisra, Tehsil Piglogarur, district Bhageshwar, Uttrakhand.
d) Offence complained of : Sec. 279/338 [ACT] e) Offence charged of : Sec. 279/338 [ACT] f) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty g) Final order : Acquitted h) Date of such order : 18.12.2019
i) Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
1 of 7 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/16 Succinctly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 18 July 2016 information was received in police station Mundka regarding admission of injured [ENTITY] in Sonia hospital. This information was recorded vide DD No.33-A in the police station and the matter was entrusted to Head Constable [ENTITY] for necessary action. Thereafter, he along with Constable [ENTITY] rushed to the hospital and collected the MLC of injured wherein he was declared "unfit for statement".
Consequently, on the basis of DD Entry No. 33-A, present FIR was registered at police station Mundka under [SECTION] [ACT] and investigation was undertaken.
On 18 July 2017, IO recorded the statement of injured [ENTITY] under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (herein after referred to as the Code) wherein he claimed to have sustained bodily injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of Eco car bearing registration number HR-13F-1796 by its driver [ENTITY].
Consequently, a notice under [SECTION] of the [ACT] was served upon the owner of the offending car asking him to inform the police as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The owner in response to the notice produced the accused before the police. Therefore, accused [ENTITY] was arrested in the present case.
After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under [SECTION] [ACT] was filed against accused/driver [ENTITY]. Consequently, he was summoned to face the trial. On his appearance, in the Court, the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution, were supplied to him as per norms.
Thereafter, charge under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2 of 7 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/16
With a view to connect the accused with the crime, prosecution has examined only one witness who was none other than the owner of the offending vehicle.
During the course of trial summons issued to the injured [ENTITY] received back with the report "expired". Therefore, he was dropped from the list of witnesses.
PW1/Sh. [ENTITY] was the owner of the offending vehicle. He testified that on the date of incident, his friend [ENTITY] was driving the vehicle.
He during his cross-examination by the learned defence counsel stated that he did not see accused driving the vehicle.
Rest witnesses are formal in nature and the guilt of the accused cannot be established from their testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident was neither took place in their presence nor it is the case of the prosecution. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by examining them. Consequently, PE stands closed and the request of the learned APP for the [ENTITY] to examine remaining witnesses is declined. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The [ENTITY] (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that " In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date "
3 of 7 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/16
Since there was no incriminating circumstance against the accused, recording of his statement under [SECTION] of the Code was also dispensed with.
I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned APP for the [ENTITY] and have perused the records very carefully.
Arguments It was argued on behalf of the accused that there is nothing on record which can establish "rash and negligent" driving on the part of accused.
He placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Braham Dass vs. [ENTITY] of H.P decided on 5 May 2009 wherein it was held as under-
" Therefore, for bringing in application of either [SECTION] or [SECTION] it must be established that there was an element of rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence led to show that any negligence was involved."
He submitted that in the case in hand also even if the rest witnesses are examined; there would be no evidence to prove negligence or recklessness. He, therefore, prayed that accused may be acquitted of the allegations leveled against him.
Decision and brief reasons for the same All persons are presumed to be innocent and no person can be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that a person has been arrested, sent behind the bars pending investigation or trial or charged for an offence gives rise to no inference of his guilt at trial. The law does not 4 of 7 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/16 require an accused to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The presumption of innocence alone is sufficient to acquit the accused, unless the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of accused's guilt on appreciation of prosecution evidence.
Undisputedly, it is a case of a motor vehicular accident. The only issue is whether it was the accused who caused the accident while driving the vehicle either negligently or rashly?
To bring home the guilt of the accused [ENTITY], prosecution has cited as many as eleven (11) witnesses in the list of witnesses annexed with the charge-sheet. Out of these eleven witnesses, PW/[ENTITY] was the injured while rest witnesses are formal in nature and the guilt of the accused cannot be proved from their testimonies, inasmuch as, the alleged incident was neither committed in their presence nor it is the case of the prosecution.
Thus, it can be said that the entire edifice of the prosecution case was the statement of injured [ENTITY]. However, he could not be examined by the prosecution as he unfortunately expired before he could be examined as a witness.
The only witness examined by the prosecution was the owner of vehicle bearing registration number HR-13F-1796. However, he testified that his friend [ENTITY] was driving the car/van. He has not even stated that accused was driving the said van on the date of accident.
Thus, nothing could come out on record to prove the necessary ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused [ENTITY].
5 of 7 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/16
Even otherwise, in the absence of any eye witness account as to how the accident has taken pace, accused [ENTITY] cannot be fastened with any criminal liability as there is no direct evidence to connect him with the crime.
Conclusion The sole eyewitness to the collision was [ENTITY]. However, he could not be examined as prosecution witness on account of his unfortunate death. Thus, there has been no direct evidence or eye witness who saw the driver of vehicle bearing registration number HR-13F-1796 driving it in rash or negligent manner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of [ENTITY] of Karnataka v. Satish, reported at (1998) 8 SCC 493 observed as under:-
"5. There being no evidence on the record to establish "negligence" or "rashness" in driving the truck on the part of the respondent, it cannot be said that the view taken by the High Court in acquitting the respondent is a perverse view. To, us it appears that the view of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is a reasonably possible view. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged."
Result There is no evidence on record to identify or link the accused [ENTITY] with the commission of the offence, i.e., whether or not he was driving the said vehicle on the alleged date of accident. Thus, there is no direct evidence to show that the accused [ENTITY] was driving the car involved in the accident.
6 of 7 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/16
Even if it is presumed that the accused [ENTITY] was the person who was driving the car at the relevant time, still there is no evidence to prove that he drove the said car rashly and negligently. In absence of any evidence on these two counts, the accused [ENTITY] is entitled to acquittal.
It is settled proposition of law that an accused is presumed innocent. This presumption prevails unless overturned by competent and credible proof. To sustain a conviction, the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Any doubt must be considered in his favor. However, in the case in hand, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused [ENTITY].
Consequently, accused [ENTITY] is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
Bail bond under [SECTION] of the Code furnished. Perused and accepted for a period of six months from today.
Digitally signed by File be consigned to record room after due compliance. [ENTITY] Date:
2019.12.19 Announced in open 17:38:40 +0530 Court on 18th day of December, 2019 ([ENTITY]) MM-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/18.12.2019 This judgment contain 7 pages and each page bears my signature.
([ENTITY]) MM-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/18.12.2019
7 of 7 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/16 [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] PS: Mundka U/[SECTION] [ACT] 18.12.2019 Today I am also looking after the court work of Ms. [ENTITY] and Ms. [ENTITY], learned MMs.
Matters pertain to police station Hari Nagar and Madi Pur have also been transferred to this court.
Present: Learned APP for the [ENTITY].
Accused on bail with counsel.
PW1/owner of the offending vehicle is examined and discharged. No other PW is present today.
File perused.
Perusal of file reveals that injured [ENTITY] has expired. His death certificate is already on record. Therefore, considering the death verification report submitted by the SHO, PW [ENTITY] is dropped from the list of witness.
Since the sole eye witness/injured has expired, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by examining the rest of the witnesses, who are formal in nature. No prejudice would be caused to the prosecution if the evidence is closed as there are no chances of successful prosecution in view of paucity of evidence to prove the charges. Therefore, PE stands closed and request of the learned APP for the [ENTITY] to examine the remaining witnesses is declined. In this regard reference may be made to a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi 8 of 7 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR No. 284/16 High Court passed in the case of Govind & Ors vs. The [ENTITY] (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 104(2003) DLT 510 wherein it was held that " In cases where ultimate chance of conviction is very bleak or there is no prospect of the case ending in conviction in such cases no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution and trial to continue. It is advisable to truncate or snip the proceedings and save valuable time of the courts. The trial should not be continued only for the purpose of formally completing the proceedings to pronounce the conclusion on a future date "
Since there is no incriminating circumstance against the accused, recording of his statement under [SECTION] of the Code is also dispensed with.
I have heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned APP for the [ENTITY] and have perused the records very carefully.
Vide separate judgment of even date, accused [ENTITY] is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
Bail bonds under [SECTION] of the Code furnished. Perused and accepted.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
([ENTITY]) MM-06, West District, Tis Hazari Courts/ Delhi/18.12.2019 9 of 7