IN THE COURT OF MS [ENTITY] METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI. FIR No. 348/13 U/[SECTION] [ACT] PS: State v. [ENTITY] Date of Institution of case:22.09.2015 Date of Judgment reserved:27.11.2019 Date on which Judgment pronounced:27.11.2019 JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. : 5293054/16 Date of Commission of : 14.11.2013 offence Name of the complainant : Sh. [ENTITY]
Name and address of the : [ENTITY] S/O Sh. [ENTITY] accused person R/O H. No. 162, Gali NO.7, Samai Pur Badli, Delhi Offence complained of : 279/338 [ACT] Plea of accused : Not guilty Date of order : 27.11.2019 Final Order : Convicted The story of prosecution is as under :
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.11.2013, at about 11:00 PM, near Khatta on byepass road, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Bhalswa Dairy, the accused [ENTITY] was found driving a motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8S AG9675, in a manner so rash FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 1 of 20 and negligent as to endanger human life and while driving so, he hit against complainant and caused grievous inuries to his person and thereby accused had committed offences punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT] and accordingly, accused had been facing the trial for the said offence.
Investigation
2. After registration of the case, necessary investigation was carried out by the IO concerned. Site plan was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded under [SECTION] of the [ACT] [hereinafter to be referred as [ACT]. for brevity]. The accused was arrested. Relevant record was collected. The final report under [SECTION] of [ACT], was prepared against the above named accused and challan was presented in the Court.
3. Copies of challan and relevant documents were supplied to the accused free of costs as envisaged under [SECTION] of [ACT] Charge
4. A prima facie case under [SECTION] [ACT], was found to be made out against the accused. Notice was served upon the accused, accordingly, on 30.04.2016 by the then Ld. MM. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
List of witnesses and documents proved
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses.
PW1 Sh. [ENTITY] was the complainant in the present case. PW1 deposed that on 14.11.2013, he along with his friend namely [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] had gone to G.T. Karnal Road to attend marriage, while they were coming back, they stopped near bus stand of G.T. Karnal near khatta to take cigarette and they stop the car at the side FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 2 of 20 of the road. PW1 further deposed that he had gone to the other side of the road to buy cigarette and when he was coming back and had crossed the road and was about to reach near the car, one motorcycle rider came from the side of Alipur at a very high speed and hit him due to which he suffered injuries on his left leg. He further deposed that the motorcyclist was the accused. He further deposed that accused also fell on the road but he had not suffered any injury. He was taken to Saroj Hospital by his friend. He further deposed that at that time on the road the accused told his name as [ENTITY]. PW1 further told that his statement i.e. Ex.PW1/A was recorded by the police in the Hospital. PW1 told the registration number of said motorcycle as DL8SAC9675 but he could not identify the motorcycle in the court but stated that the make of said motorcycle was Hero Honda Passion.
It is pertinent to note mention here that PW1 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State after taking permission of the court as he was resiling from his earlier statement . During crossexamination conducted by Ld. APP for the State, PW1 after seeing the photographs i.e. Mark A to C of the offending motorcycle, failed to identify the same. This witness was crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsel.
6. PW2 Sh. [ENTITY] was the friend of complainant /PW1 ([ENTITY]), who deposed that on 14.11.2013, he along with his friends [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were coming back to home after attending the marriage at Alipur in the car of [ENTITY]. He further deposed that when they reached opposite to bus stand of the bypass, [ENTITY] had parked the car on the side of the road and had gone to the other side of the road i.e. Karnal bypass bus stand to purchase cigarette and when he FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 3 of 20 was coming back and was about to reach the car, at the distance of about 7 to 8 feet, one motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8S AC 9675 came from the side of Alipur at a very high speed and hit against [ENTITY] due to which he suffered injury on his left leg and got a fracture. The said motorcyclist also fell down. He further deposed that at that time police officials also reached there and took [ENTITY] to Saroj Hospital. PW1 deposed that the offending motorcycle was Hero Honda Passion and was of black colour. He further deposed that the accused also accompanied them to hospital. He further deposed that as he was busy in the formalities of the hospital so, he could not tell whether the accused was arrested in his presence or not.
PW2 was also crossexamined by Ld. APP for the state after seeking permission of the court as he was also resiling from his earlier statement. During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, memos Mark D1,D2 and D3 were shown to the witness and could not identify his signatures on the said memos. Even after seeing the photographs Mark A to C, he also could not identify the offending motorcycle. This witness was also crossexamined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
7. PW3 Sh. [ENTITY] deposed that on 14.11.2013, he along with his friends namely [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] had gone to attend a marriage at Alipur and when they were coming back and reached at bypass at about 11:00 p.m., he desired to smoke a cigarette, therefore, they stopped on the side and [ENTITY] went to the other side of the road for bringing cigarette. He further deposed that when [ENTITY] was coming back and had crossed half of the road and was about to reach near car, one motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAC9675 came from the side of Alipur FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 4 of 20 and hit [ENTITY] due to which [ENTITY] suffered injuries in his leg and got fractured. He further deposed that there were two persons at that time and one of them was present but he could not tell whether the said person was driving the motorcycle or was a pillion rider. Thereafter he made call at 100 number as well as at the home of [ENTITY], then they took [ENTITY] to Saroj Hospital and at that time two persons also accompanied them to the hospital.
This witness was also crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State after seeking permission from the court as he was also resiling from his earlier statement. During crossexamination by Ld. APP for the State, PW3 deposed that he could not tell whether the person present in the court was the same person, who was driving the motorcycle or was a pillion rider at the time of alleged incident. He further admitted that due to lapse of period of about 4 years he was not able to recollect the facts of the present case.
8. PW4 ASI [ENTITY] deposed that on 15.11.2013, he was posted at PS Bhalswa Dairy as Duty Officer. He deposed that on that day at about 01:15 p.m., he received the information through wireless operator and he reduced the same information to DD No. 6B and the copy of the same was proved as Ex.PW4/D. He further deposed that on the same day he also received the rukka through wireless operator and registered the present case FIR and the computrized copy of the same was proved as Ex.PW4/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW4/B. Despite opportunity the crossexamination of this witness was recorded as Nil.
9. PW5 [ENTITY] deposed that he was the registered owner of the FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 5 of 20 motorcycle of DL8SAC9675, Hero Honda Passion Plus. He deposed that notice U/[SECTION] [ACT] was served upon him and he proved the same as Ex.PW6/A, bearing his signatures at point A and he gave the reply to the said notice. He further deposed that at the time of accident accused [ENTITY] was the driver of the alleged motorcycle. Thereafter, said motorcycle was got released on Suprdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW6/B. He correctly identified the motorcycle through photographs Mark A,B and C. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel.
10. PW6 [ENTITY] deposed that on 15.11.2013, he was posted at PS Bhalswa Dairy as Ct. and on that day at around 1:15 a.m. IO, SI [ENTITY] received the call/information regarding the incident. He further deposed that thereafter, he along with IO visited the Saroj Hospital and after reaching there IO met injured [ENTITY] in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that IO made endorsement on the complaint and prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for registration for FIR at PS. He further deposed that he returned back to the spot, in the meantime IO already reached at the spot from hospital.
PW6 further deposed that at the spot IO seized the DL of the accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A, bearing his signatures at point A IO seized the RC and Insurance vide memo Ex.PW6/B, IO also seized the motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAG2675 vide seizure memo Ex. PW6/C. He further deposed that IO arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/D and personal search memo Ex.PW6/E, respectively. PW6 also correctly identified the alleged FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 6 of 20 motorcycle through photographs. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel.
11. PW7 Retired SI [ENTITY] deposed that on 15.11.2013, he was posted at PS Bhalswa Dairy as SI and on that day he had received the information/DD no. 6B i.e. Ex. PW 4/D and after receiving the same he along with Ct. [ENTITY] reached at Saroj Hospital. He further deposed that after reaching there he met the injured [ENTITY], who was already admitted in the hospital after the accident and he inquired from the injured [ENTITY], who narrated the whole incident to him and he reduced the same information into complaint i.e. Ex. PW 1/A, bearing his signature at point B as an attesting witness. He made the endorsement on the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. [ENTITY] for registration of the FIR at PS. He further deposed that at the hospital he also met one eye witness [ENTITY], who was accompanied the injured/complainant [ENTITY] at the time of accident. From the hospital he alongwith eye witness [ENTITY] reached at the spot and prepared the site plan at his instance i.e. Ex. PW 7/A and in the meanwhile Ct. [ENTITY] reached at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He further deposed that meanwhile owner of the motorcycle make passion , namely [ENTITY], reached at the spot and he served the notice U/[SECTION] [ACT] Ex. PW6/A upon him. He seized the motorcycle vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 6/C, bearing his signature at point C. He further seized the DL and RC and insurance vide seizure memo already Ex. PW 6/A and PW 6/B both bearing his signature at point C. He further deposed that at the instance of the eye witness [ENTITY], he arrested the accused [ENTITY] vide arrest memo FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 7 of 20 already Ex.PW 6/D and personal search memo already Ex. PW 6/E both bearing his signature at point C. Thereafter, accused was released on the police bail by him. He further deposed that he collected the MLC of the injured [ENTITY] from the hospital and deposited the case property in the malkhana.
PW7 also deposed that during the investigation he got the vehicle mechanically inspected. He also took the opinion of the concerned doctor on the MLC of accused. He correctly identified the accused and the motorcycle through photographs available on the record mark A, B and C. This witness was crossexamined by Ld. Defence counsel.
16. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 25.09.2019.
Statement under [SECTION] [ACT]
17. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under [SECTION] [ACT] was recorded. All incriminating material brought on record were put to the accused to which he denied the allegations made against him and claimed himself to be innocent and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence and the same was closed.
Arguments
18. Before delving into the merits of the above case, it is important to understand the emote of the term rashness and negligence as defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in [PRECEDENT] "Criminal Negligence is the gross and FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 8 of 20 culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen. Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness". In deciding the question as to whether the accused was guilty of rash or negligent act within the scope of above sections, the court has to judge as to the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man is said to be having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
19. In the backdrop of the above definition and applying the same to the facts of the above case, it becomes imperative to analyse the testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution for the purpose of deducing that the ingredients necessary for punishing U/[SECTION] [ACT] along with [SECTION] [ACT] are made out or not.
20. At the outset, it is apposite to analyse the testimony of the star and the material witness of the prosecution i.e. the complainant/ injured himself ([ENTITY]) i.e. PW1. It is imperative to state that PW1 deposed in his examinationinchief that on the fateful day, he along with his friend [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were coming back from marriage function and on their way they stopped near G.T. Karnal Road as PW1 had to buy cigarettes. He further stated that while he was coming back after purchasing the cigarettes and was about the reach his car, one FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 9 of 20 motorcycle coming from the side of Alipur hit against him and as a result of the same he sustained injuries. It is further paramount to mention that it is cogently stated by PW1 that the motorcyclist was driving his motorcycle at a very high speed and resultantly he hit the same against PW1 causing him injuries. It is further apropos to mention that PW1 categorically stated in his examinationinchief that the registration number of the offending motorcycle is DL8SAC9674 and he further identified the accused correctly in the court. Thus from the bare perusal of the testimony of PW1 it can be safely deduced that neither the identity of the accused is disputed nor is the identity of the accidental vehicle brought under any kind of scanner. At this stage, it becomes necessary to state that PW1 was crossexamined by Ld APP for the State as the witness could not identify the photographs of the offending motorcycle but this per se does not by any stretch of imagination lead to the inference that the injured turned hostile as the court needs to take judicial notice of the fact that the witness explicitly, cogently and clearly stated the number of the offending motorcycle as well as the make of the offending vehicle i.e. Hero Honda Passion and just the fact that the witness could not clearly identify the photographs of the offending vehicle does not lead to an inference that the identity of the vehicle is questioned as with the passage of time the possibility of the memory of the witness fading out to the extent of not being able to identify the exact photograph of the vehicle cannot be overlooked. However, the vital issue which needs appreciation is that the witness clearly stated the registration number and the make of the offending vehicle and these two aspects are sufficient to establish the identity of offending vehicle.
FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 10 of 20
21. It is further material to mention that the MLC of the injured PW1 is placed on record and perusal of the same clearly shows that the injured sustained grievous injury with the observations of the deformity of left leg along with swelling and tenderness. Perusal of the MLC also shows that the injured received abrasion on the face and on the chest and further [CASE NUMBER] of the injured duly stands admitted by the accused in his statement recorded U/[SECTION] [ACT]. Thus, the testimony of the injured qua the injuries received upon his person duly stands corroborated with the MLC placed on record. At this stage, it also becomes important to mention that the injured i.e. PW1 was duly cross examined at length by the Ld. Defence Counsel, but nothing material could be culled out in the crossexamination of PW1 to put his testimony under scanner. PW1 withstood the litmus test of crossexamination. It was averred by the Ld. Defence counsel that PW1 in his cross examination stated that the name of the accused was told to him by his friend but this aspect even if is believed to be gospel truth does not question the identity of the accused as the accused was identified by the witness in the court.
22. It is further paramount to mention that the evidence of stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is considered to be very reliable and is unlikely that he will spare the actual assailant. His testimony has its own efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was very much present at the time of incident.
FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 11 of 20
23. It is a settled law that testimony of injured witness is considered to be very reliable and is accorded a special status in law. In the case of [PRECEDENT], where it was held as follows: " The evidence of the stamped witness must be given due weightage as his presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lands support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. ([PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT];
[PRECEDENT]".
24. In the case of [PRECEDENT], it was held that evidence of an injured witness cannot be doubted merely because there is a background of previous dispute enmity between the parties because this could well be the motive of giving assault by the accused on injured witnesses. The evidence of an injured witness has to be appreciated keeping in view that ordinarily a person, who has been assaulted by someone would not allow him to go Scot free and falsely implicate persons other than those who actually assaulted him. The evidence of an injured witness stand on different pedestal as compared FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 12 of 20 to any other witness cited by the prosecution as eye witness, who claims to have seen the incident. Where an injured witness clearly names the person and the assault made on him by those persons which is broadly corroborated with what has been found in the medical report, even though there may not be any mathematical precision with regard to the manner of assault, the evidence of an injured eye witness cannot be lightly thrown aside only on certain minor contradictions and omissions. It cannot be a case of some exaggeration or it could even be some discrepancy in recollecting the whole incident with exactitude and certainty but on certain minor discrepancy disbelieving altogether the testimony of injured eye witness, would be against settled principle of appreciation of evidence.
25. In the case of [PRECEDENT], it was held that evidence of an injured witness has to be relied upon, unless the injuries are found to be superfluous or self inflicted just to create evidence against the other party. It was further held that if, the common object stands proved, trivial discrepancies become immaterial and insignificant. The testimony of an injured witness comes with a built inguarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone ([PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT].
26. Therefore, in the light of law reproduced as above and applying the same to the facts of the above case it can be categorically stated that the testimony of the injured witness in the present case is absolutely FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 13 of 20 clear and cogent and free from any kind of discrepancies, embellishment and concoctions. Thus, no ground is produced for brushing aside the testimony of the injured witness. There are no grounds for rejecting the evidence of PW1 and as discussed above unless and until there are no major contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of injured witness, there arises no reason for either doubting his presence at the spot of incident or for questioning the injuries suffered by him. Moreover, in the case in hand the testimony of PW1 is not only firm, cogent and convincing but is also in consonance with the medical evidence on record.
27. Apart from analyzing the testimony of the star witness i.e. the injured, it also becomes necessary to scrutinize the testimony of the eye witnesses i.e. PW2 [ENTITY] and PW3 [ENTITY]. On collectively evaluating the testimony of the eye witnesses, it can be stated that neither the spot of incident i.e. Khatta on G.T. Karnal Road, bypass is doubted nor the alleged time of incident i.e. 11:00 p.m. is brought under scanner as it is categorically stated by PW2 [ENTITY] as well as PW3 [ENTITY] that while they both along with injured i.e. PW1 [ENTITY] were returning back after attending a marriage function at Ali Pur and when they reached opposite of the bus stand of the bypass, [ENTITY] had gone on the other side of the road i.e. G.T. Karnal bypass to purchase cigarette and while he was coming back one motorcycle bearing No. DL8SAC 9675 came from the side of Alipur at a very high speed and hit against [ENTITY], as a result of which he sustained injury and got a fracture resultantly. Thus, the testimony of the eye witnesses i.e. PW2 [ENTITY] and PW3 [ENTITY] are in sync with each other as FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 14 of 20 well as with the other ocular and documentary evidences on record. Though PW2 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State as the witness was unable to identify the photographs of the motorcycle shown to him but this per se does not lead to the inference that the witness turned hostile as it is categorically stated by PW2 in his examinationinchief as well as crossexamination that he cannot exactly identify the offending motorcycle as at that point of time he was busy in the formalities of the hospital as well as he was busy in taking care of the injured and removing him to the hospital. Further, it becomes relevant to mention that though the witness could not exactly identify the photographs of the offending vehicle but he cogently identified the accused as well as the make of the offending vehicle being Hero Honda Passion of black colour and this in itself is sufficient to establish the identity of the offending vehicle. At this stage, it further become relevant that in the case of [PRECEDENT], it was observed that: " Overmuch importance cannot be attached to minor discrepancies. The reasons are obvious :
"(1) By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if, a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.
In para NO. 10 of the report, this court observed that: ( SCC pp 51415).
"(10) While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once, that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks, FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 15 of 20 infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of evidence is shaken as to rander is unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to from the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not disbenefit will have to attach due weightage to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
Even honest and truthful witness may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals".
28. Thus in light of the law reproduced as above it can be stated that the witness has categorically identified the accused as well as the vehicle by stating the registration number of the offending vehicle in his deposition before the court and merely because the witness could not exactly identify the photographs of the offending vehicle, this per se does not result in eschewing the testimony of the witness. It is further settled proposition of law that in appreciating the evidence, the approach of the court must be integrated and not truncated or isolated. In other words, FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 16 of 20 the impact of the evidence in totality on the case of prosecution or innocence of the accused has to be kept in mind in coming to the conclusion as to the guilt or otherwise of the accused. In reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused, the court has to appreciate, analyse and assess the evidence placed before it by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic value and animus of witnesses.
29. In [PRECEDENT] a three judge bench held that: "7. the maxim falsus in uno, falsu in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything), is neither sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment, it is ,therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence carefully and , in terms of the felicitous methapor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest.
30. Apart from the testimony of the above witnesses, the prosecution also examined PW3 i.e. [ENTITY], who deposed on the same lines as that of PW2 but he stated in his crossexamination conducted by the Ld. Defence Counsel that he cannot tell whether the accused present in the court was driving the motorcycle or was a pillion rider and this per se requires appreciation with regard to the honesty of the deposition of the witness for his wanted, he could have falsely implicating the accused i.e. PW3 could have easily stated that the accused is the person, who was driving the offending motorcycle but he did not do so and merely established the identity of the accused being on the motorcycle at FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 17 of 20 the relevant point of time. At this stage, it also becomes necessary to mention that the defence did not adopt this aspect as even its line of argument as neither is it stated in crossexamination nor has any evidence being led on this point by the accused that at the relevant point of time the accused was not driving the offending vehicle.
31. In addition to the above, it also becomes necessary to state that it was argued by the Ld Defence Counsel that PW2 as well as PW3 have stated in their crossexamination that there were many shops on the other side of the road and it is further argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution but at this stage court needs to take judicial notice of the fact that firstly the incident took place at wee hours of the night i.e. at around 11:00 p.m., secondly the incident took place on a highway , thirdly it is cogent and clear from the facts of the case and the evidence adduced that the area/ spot at which the accident took place was not a residential area so, the possibility of public witness being their per se stands negated. Fourthly, there is no denial to the fact that the witnesses did state that there were shops on the other side of the road but none of the witnesses stated that the shops were open or had public or customers or for that matter there was any footfall in those shops at the relevant point of time and taking note of the fact and circumstances of the present case, the possibility of the public witnesses being present on the highway at 11:00 pm in the night per se appears to be implausible. Moreover, court cannot lose site of the fact that there is a usual tendency of the by passers and bystanders that in the event of any accident taking place on the highways or roads, after being present at that spot of the incident they leave subsequently.
FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 18 of 20
32. In addition to the above, the other witnesses examined by the prosecution are merely formal witnesses and their testimony is also on the same lines and corroborative with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. At this stage, it is also material to mention that PW5 [ENTITY] categorically deposed that he was the registered owner of the motorcycle bearing registration No. DL8SAG9675 and that at the time of the incident the accused was driving the above said motorcycle. The said fact is also duly stated in the reply given by PW5 to the notice received by him U/[SECTION] [ACT] i.e. Ex.PW6/A.
33. Thus, relying upon the law as well as the facts discussed above, it can be safely concluded that the accused persons had inflicted grievous injury upon the person of complainant. The star witness of the prosecution i.e. [ENTITY], has categorically attributed injury to the accused person. Though, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] has categorically dealt with the question as to whether on the basis of a solitary evidence, conviction can be maintained. It was held that, " conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness, if he is reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth than on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained'. However, in the case in hand there is not only the untainted evidence of the star witness but the same stands duly corroborated with other ocular and documentary evidence.
34. In these circumstances, this court has no hesitation in holding that FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 19 of 20 the prosecution has been able to prove beyond doubts that grievous injury was sustained by [ENTITY] due to rash and negligent driving by the accused and the same has been duly caused by accused [ENTITY].
35. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances and as a sequel of above detailed discussion of law and facts, this court is of the considered opinion that cogent and material evidences have been adduced by the prosecution in order to prove its case and the credibility of the above said prosecution witnesses, could not be shaken or impeached on any material points. The prosecution has established the identity of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubts and has further proved that the accused person is guilty of the offence charged for. So, the accused person is held guilty and convicted under [SECTION] of [ACT].
Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in open Court RICHA by [ENTITY] Date: 2019.11.27 10:55:18 +0530 on 27th day of November, 2019. ([ENTITY]) MM8(North)Rohini Courts:Delhi FIR No.348/13 State Vs. [ENTITY] Page NO. 20 of 20