INTHECOURTOFSH.[ENTITY] ADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE04 &SPECIALJUDGE(NDPS)SOUTHEAST:SAKETCOURTS:NEWDELHI CA204302.16 CriminalAppealNo.58/2015 IDNo.02406R0091012015 [ENTITY]/oSh.SatpalRana R/oH.No.50,Vill.&PO:Siraspur Delhi110042 Appellant Versus TheState(NCT)Delhi Respondent
U/s279/304A[ACT], PS:DefenceColony Institutedon:20.03 2015 Arguedon:23.02.2017 Decidedon:08.03.2017 JUDGMENT 1 Presentappealundersection374(2)CrPChasbeenpreferredby the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 18.02.2015 and consequentorderonsentencedated02.03.2015passedbythecourtofMs. [ENTITY],Ld.MM09,SED,NewDelhiincasetitled"Statev.[ENTITY]", FIR No. 60/2011 under [SECTION], [ACT], PS Defence Colony, wherebytheLd.MMwaspleasedtoconvicttheappellantfortheaforesaid offencesandwasfurtherpleasedtoawardedhimRIforaperiodofsixmonths fortheoffencesundersections279[ACT]alongwithfineofRs.1000/andin default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a further period of 10 days. Further, he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year for the offenceundersection304A[ACT]withoutimpositionofanyfine,whichwasto runconcurrently.Thefinewasstatedtohavebeenpaidbytheappellant.The [CASE NUMBER].
Feelingaggrievedfromthesame,theappellanthadchallengedthesame onthefollowingamongstothergrounds: Because the impugned judgment and consequent order on sentence werebadinlawaswellasonfactsandtheLd.MMhadfailedtoappreicate the evidence available on record in the form of crossexamination of the prosecutionwitnessesintheirproperprospective.
It was stated further that PW1 [ENTITY], the alleged material prosecutionwitnesshadcategoricallystatedthatnoaccidenthadtakenplace withtheirbusandwhentheyhadjustcrossedtheAndrewsGanjFlyover,the appellanthereinhadstoppedthebusandwhen,he(PW1)hadinquiredfrom the appellant as to why he had stopped the bus, then he had replied that someonestandinginfrontofthebushadgivenhimasignaltostopthebus andaccordinglyhehadparkedthebusontheroadsideandlateronhecame to know that an accident had occurred on the road. However, the bus in questionwasnotinvolvedinanyaccidentanddespitecrossexaminationby theLd.APPforthestate,PW1hadnotsupportedtheprosecutionatallquathe appellant related to his involvement in the present case in any manner whatsoever.Similarly,PW4Ct.[ENTITY]hadalsodeposedinhiscrossexamination conducted on behalf of the appellant that he had not told the IO in his statementrecordedbyhimundersection161CrPCthatthebusinquestion wasbeingdriven[ENTITY]byitsdriver.Thiswitnesshadstated furtherthathehadnotwitnessedtheallegedaccident,norhehadseenthe accidentwithhisowneyes.Itwasalsostatedbyhimthatoffendingbuswas anoldmodelDTCbus.Similarly,PW6Insp.[ENTITY],hadnotonlyfailed toidentifytheappellantasthedriverofthebusinvolvedinthepresentcase butalsohadadmittedthathehadnottoldtheIOabouttheoffendingbus being driven in a zigzag manner by the appellant and because of non considerationoftheaforesaidversionoftheprosecutionwitnessesbytheLd. TrialCourt, ithadcausedmiscarriageofjusticeandgreathardshiptothe appellant,hence,theimpugnedjudgmentofconvictionandconsequentorder onsentencewerebadinlawanddeservedtobesetasidebythisCourtin exerciseof itsappellatepowersandjurisdictionandtheappellantdeserved acquittalfromthiscourt.
2 Briefly stated facts that had given riseto filing of the present revisionpetitionaresuccinctlygivenasunder: Asperthecaseoftheprosecution,on11/5/2011atabout9:45AMthe appellant was driving a DTC bus bearing registration No. DL1PB6118 at AndrewsGanjFlyOverinarashandnegligentmannerandwhiledrivingso, hehadhitthesaidbusagainstmotorcycleNo.DL7SU9851beingdrivenby deceased [ENTITY] and as a result of the impact of the bus, the said motorcyclisthadfallendownandsufferedinjuries,hewasremovedtohospital wherehehadscummedtohisinjuriesduetotheimpactofaccident.Oncethe matterwasreportedtothepolice,FIRNo.60/2011u/s279/304A[ACT]was registeredatPSDefenceColonyagainsttheappellant.Appellantwasarrested inthiscasebutreleasedonbailbeinginvolvedinabailableoffenceandafter completionoftheinvestigation,chargesheetwasfiledagainsttheappellant hereinbeforetheLd.TrialCourtbytheSHO,PS:DefenceColony. 3 NoticeofaccusationwasservedupontheappellantbytheLd. MMon16.03.2012towhichhehadpleadednotguiltyandhadclaimedtrial. 4 Inordertoproveitscaseagainsttheappellant,beyondshadow of any reasonable doubt, the prosecution had examined 9 witnesses in all. However,forthepurposeofdecidingtheappeal,thetestimonyofPW1Sh.[ENTITY].[ENTITY]arerelevantasotherwitnesseswere formalinnaturebeingpoliceofficialsanddoctors. 5 PW1Sh.JaiKanwarwasstatedtobeworkingwithDTCasa Conductor.Hehaddeposedthaton11.5.2011hewasondutyatBusNo.DL 1PB6118 from 4:50 AM to 01:00PM alongwith its driver [ENTITY], the appellantherein.Hehadstatedfurtherthatnoaccidenthadtakenplacewith the said bus. When they had just crossed the Andrews Ganj Flyover, the appellanthadstoppedthebusandwhenhehadinquiredfromhimastowhy hehadstoppedthebus,then,theappellantrepliedthathehadparkedthebus ontheroadsideuponbeingsignaledbysomeoneinthisregardandlateron hehadcometoknowthatanaccidenthadoccurredontheroad.However,his buswasnotinvolvedinanyaccident.
6 This witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State at length.HehaddeniedalltheformalsuggestionsbeingputtohimbyLd.APP fortheStateasincorrectand/orthathehadgivenstatementmarkAtothe policeinthiscase. Itwasvoluntarilystatedbythiswitnessthathisbuswas notalowfloorbus.Itwasalsodeniedbyhimthathisbuswasalowfloorbus anditwasinvolvedinthepresentcaseandwasbeingdrivenbytheappellant. 7 PW1wasnotcrossexaminedonbehalfoftheappellantdespite availinganopportunityinthisregard.
8 PW6 Insp. [ENTITY] had claimed himself to be an eye witnessoftheaccidentinvolvedinthepresentcase.Hehadstatedthaton 11.5.2011,hewaspostedasTIatR.K.PuramTrafficeCircle.Onthatdayat about9:00AM,whenhewasgoingtohisofficeviaMoolchandRingRoad, AIIMS,hehadseenaDTCbusbearingNo.DL1PB6118ascendingtheflyover ofAndrewsGanj.Atthesametime,hehadobservedonemotorcyclemoving ontheleftsideofthesaidbusnearitsrearside.Thedriverofthesaidbushad suddenlydrovethesaidbusinsuchamannerthattherearleftsideofthesaid bushadhittherightsideofthesaidmotorcycleandasaresultthereof,the motorcycleriderhadfallendownontheroad. Onanalarmbeingraisedby thepublicpersons,thebusdriverhadstoppedthesaidbus.Thereafter,hehad alsoreachedclosetothemotorcyclerider,whohadfallendown.Thepublic personshadmadehimshiftedtotheroadsideasthetrafficjamhadbegunto happen.Heflashedawirelessmessageregardingtheaccidentandrequested forthePCR.Aftersometime,PCRcameandshiftedtheinjuredtohospital.Ct. [ENTITY]Kumarwhowasstatedtobeondutyinthesaidarea,hadalsoreachedat thespot.Inordertoavoidtrafficjam,themotorcycleandthebusweremade to descenddowntheflyoverbythesideoftheroadandwereparkedover there. Thereafter, PW6 had proceeded on his duty deputing Ct. [ENTITY] for safeguardingthespot.
9 It was stated further by him that driver of the said bus was drivingthevehicledespitetrafficonroadinadangerous/[ENTITY] hehadwronglytriedtoovertakethevehiclefromtherightside,whereasthe buseswereconfinedtoplyinextremeleftlaneaspertrafficrules/Supreme Courtguidelines. Hecouldnotidentifythedriverofthesaidbusexplaining thatsufficienttimehad elapsedsincethenandmoreoverhisattentionwas towardstheinjured.
10 ThiswitnesswasalsocrossexaminedbyLd.APPfortheStateon the point of identification of the appellant, but he could not state with certaintythattheappellantwasdrivingtheoffendingbus. 11 Inhiscrossexaminationconductedonbehalfoftheappellant, thewitnesshadstatedthattherewasadistanceofabout30metersbetween his vehicle and the bus in question and around 2025 vehicles were in between,including23carsandrestofthevehiclesweretwowheelers.Itwas statedfurtherthatvehiclesweremovingontherightsideofthesaidbusand assoonasbusdriverstartedascendingtheflyover,hedidthemistakeand causedtheaccident.
12 ItwasstatedfurtherbythiswitnessthathehadnottoldtheIO thataccusedwasdrivingthesaidbus[ENTITY]buthadclaimedthat hehadseentheaccidentwithhisowneyes.Hehaddeniedthesuggestionof thedefencethatitwasnotalowfloorDTCbus.Hewasconfrontedwithhis statement recorded u/[SECTION] Ex. PW6/D where the offending bus was statedtobealowfloorbus.
13 In his further crossexamination recorded on 21.8.2014, the witness(PW6)hadtakenacomplete"U"turnfromhisearliertestimonyand hadstatedthatoffendingvehiclehadhitthevehiclefromleftside,whereasin his examination in chief, he had categorically stated that rear side of the offending vehicle had hit the right side of the motorcycle. He had also admittedhisstatementrecordedbytheIOundersection161CrPCtobethe same which was made by him and the same was placed on record as Ex. PW6/D1, wherein involvement of a low floor bus in the incident was mentionedandnotthebuswhichwasseizedinthepresentcase. 14 However,perusalofthejudgmentrevealsthattheLd.MMhad chosentopickuptheportionsofevidencefromthetestimonyofPW1and PW6inpiecemealstoholdtheappellantguiltyandhadconvictedhiminthe presentcase.
15 From the statement of PW1, the Ld. MM had established the presence of the appellant at the spot as well as factum of his driving the offendingvehicledespitethefactthatPW1hadcategoricallyandemphatically deniedtheoccurrenceorinvolvementofhisvehicleinthepresentincident. 16 PW6,hadcategoricallydeclinedtoidentifytheappellantbutthe Ld MM seemed to have picked up only the said portion of his testimony describingtheaccidentandhadplacedrelianceonthesamebeingtheeye witnessdespitethefactthatPW6hadimprovisedhisversionbeforetheLd. TrialCourtbystatingthattheappellantwasdrivingthevehicleinazigzag manner.ThisfactdoesnotfindmentioninhisstatementrecordedbytheIO inthiscase.Eveninthecourt,hehadmerelystatedthatthebuswasbeing driven by the appellant in such a manner that it had hit the motorcycle. However,thesaidmannerwasnotexplainedanyfurtherindetailbyhim. 17 Fromtheperusalofthesiteplan,itappearsthatwidthoftheFly overonwhichtheaccidenthadallegedlytakenplacewasnotsothatitwould haveallowedorpermittedapersontodrivehisheavyvehicle,likethebusin thepresentcase,[ENTITY].
18 Fromtheperusaloftheimpugnedjudgment,itappearsthatLd. MM had based the conviction of the appellant on the basis of her mere assumptionsofhisdrivingthevehicleandhittingthemotorcycle.Evenifitis presumedthatanaccidenthadactuallytakenplace,whichhadresultedinto deathofthedeceased,then,alsoIhavenohesitationinholdingthataccident persedoesnotconstituteanoffenceundersection279/304A[ACT]unlessand until the primary elements of rashness and negligent are attributed to the conductofthedriveroftheoffendingvehicle.
19 Evenasperthemechanicalinspectionreport,silenceraffixedon frontsideofthebuswasfoundinafreshpressedconditionwhichfactitselfis contrarytotheversionoftheallegedeyewitness,whohadstatedthatleftside rearportionofthebushadhitthemotorcyclefromitsrightsidewhenthe appellantwasmakinganattempttoovertakethebikefromthewrongside. 20 Haditbeenanattemptofovertaking,then,thevehicleofthe appellantshouldhavehitthebikefromthefrontsideandnotfromtherear side, as was the case of the prosecution. However, the fact that it was allegedlytherearleftsideofthebusthathadhittherightsideofthebike, showsthatprocessofovertakingofthebuswasalreadycompleteandeven thebikerwasnotridinghisbikeintheproperlane.
21 It appears that the Ld. MM had based the conviction of the appellantonhermereassumptionsandpresumptionsbecausetherewasnot evenaniotaofevidenceonrecordtoshowthattheaccidenthadtakenplace due to "rashness" or "negligent" driving of appellant. The prosecution was requiredtoprovethemannerofrashnessorthenegligenceonthepartofthe appellant,whichhadnotbeenexplainedbytheprosecutioninviewofthe citationofourownHon'bleHighCourtinthecasetitledas"AbdulSubhanv. State(NCTofDelhi)"reportedin2006(133)DLT562:2006(8)AD(Delhi)
478. 22 Inviewofmyaforesaiddiscussionandobservations,Ihaveno hesitation in holding that Ld. MM was not justified and legally correct in convicting the appellant and sentencing him vide impugned judgment of convictionandorderonsentence.
23 Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgmentofconvictionandconsequentorderonsentenceareherebysetaside andtheappellantisacquittedfromtheallegationsofoffencesundersections 279/304A[ACT].
24 Bailbond/suretybondfurnishedbyhimeitherbeforethiscourt orbeforetheLd.TrialCourt,standscancelledanddischarged. 25 TCRbesentbacktotheLd.TrialCourtalongwithcopyofthis judgmentforitsperusalandnecessaryrecords.
26 Appealfilebeconsignedtorecordroomaftercomplianceofall othernecessaryformalitiesinthisregard.
Announcedinthe opencourton 8thMarch 2017 ([ENTITY]) ASJ04&Spl.Judge(NDPS)SouthEastDistrict SaketCourts,NewDelhi