IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI State v. [ENTITY] FIR No. 161/2013 PS Moti Nagar U/[SECTION] [ACT] JUDGMENT
[CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] Date of Institution : 19.06.2014 Date of Commission of Offence : 16.05.2013 Name of the complainant : SI [ENTITY] Name & address of the accused : [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o E-114, Shashtri Nagar, New Delhi. Offence complained of : U/[SECTION] [ACT] Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Final Order : Acquitted Date of reserve for judgment : 27.01.2016 Date of announcing of judgment : 27.01.2016 FIR No. 161/2013 PS Moti Nagar BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall decide the present case u/[SECTION] [ACT].
2. The story of the prosecution is that on 16.05.2013 at about 06:00 PM at Jakhira Bus Stand, Delhi, accused [ENTITY] was driving a Alto Car bearing registration no. DL-8CH-0336. The accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. While driving the said vehicle in rash and negligent, accused hit against a pedestrian namely Sh. [ENTITY] and caused grievous injuries to him.
3. Charge sheet was filed against the accused in the Court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. After framing of charge, matter was posted for prosecution evidence. Prosecution has examined only two witnesses i.e PW1 Sh. [ENTITY] (injured) and PW2 Ct. Shri [ENTITY].
5. PW1 Sh. [ENTITY] deposed that about 1 year back, he was going to his house. When he went to Moti Nagar Bus Stand near Zakhira to catch a bus, he met with an accident and became unconscious. It is stated by him that he could not see the vehicle by which accident was caused. It is stated by him that he was unconscious for 6-7 days. PW1 did not support the story of the prosecution as he had not stated anything about the identity of the vehicle or the accused or FIR No. 161/2013 PS Moti Nagar the manner of accident.
6. PW2 Ct. Shri [ENTITY] deposed that on 16.05.2013 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar as Constable. On that day on receipt of DD No.74B regarding accident at Zakhira Bus Stand, he alongwith SI [ENTITY] reached at the spot where it was informed that the injured has been taken to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith IO went to Maharaja Agrasen Hospital and collected the MLC of injured, who was unconscious. Thereafter, the relatives of the injured were contacted from the phone and name of injured was disclosed as [ENTITY]. The injured was got admitted in the hospital by accused. It is stated by him that IO made the endorsement on the DD and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. It is stated that he went to the PS alongwith the endorsement and after registration of FIR came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR to the IO. It is stated that IO recorded his statement.
7. In the present case PW1 Sh. [ENTITY] (victim/injured) as well PW [ENTITY] were the only eye witnesses. PW1 Sh. [ENTITY] did not say anything in support of the case of the prosecution and the other eye witness i.e. Sh. [ENTITY] remained unserved even through DCP concerned. As victim/ injured has not supported case of prosecution at all and the other eye witness has remained unserved even through DCP concerned, carrying on with further prosecution evidence and recording testimonies of formal witnesses would FIR No. 161/2013 PS Moti Nagar have become only a futile exercise, and wastage of judicial time, resources and energy. The prosecution can never successfully prove that the present case was a result of an act of accused and 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].
8. 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 purpose of formally completing the procedure to pronounce the conclusion on a future date". Thus, PE was closed. Since nothing incriminating haf come on record against the accused, as such, recording of statement of accused was also dispensed with.
9. 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 FIR No. 161/2013 PS Moti Nagar 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
FIR No. 161/2013 PS Moti Nagar
12. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under [SECTION] [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] [ACT], the act of accused must be rash and negligent, which should be responsible for the grievous injuries to the victim.
13. Since the eye witness Sh. [ENTITY] has remained unserved and victim/injured PW1 Sh. [ENTITY] has stated nothing in support of the case of prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has failed to proof that the accused was driving the vehicle at the time of accident in question in a rash and negligent manner which is sina qua non to prove commission of offence u/[SECTION] [ACT]. 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 victim/injuured i.e. PW1 Sh. [ENTITY] has been examined.
14. Accused has already furnished the fresh bail/surety bond in terms of [SECTION] [ACT] in sum of Rs. 10,000/- each. The same has been accepted.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
FIR No. 161/2013 PS Moti Nagar ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 27.01.2016 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 7 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 161/2013 PS Moti Nagar