:1 IN THE COURT OF SH. SHARAD GUPTA ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE KARKARDOOMA COURTS, NEW DELHI. St. Vs. Rajveer Singh P S Khajuri Khas U/[SECTION] [ACT] JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR No. of the case : 282/06 (b) The date of commission of : offence 09/07/06 (c) The name of complainant : [ENTITY] (d) The name, parentage etc. of : Rajveer Singh s/o Sarban Singh accused r/o H.o E25, Jaitpur Extension, Badarpur, Delhi (e) The offence complained of/ : U/[SECTION] [ACT] proved (f) The plea of accused : Pleaded guilty (g) The date of institution : 12/30/99 (h) The final order : Convicted :2 (i) The date on which order was : 27.6.2015 reserved (j) The date of such order 27.6.2015 k) Brief statement of the reasons for the decision BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE 1 The accused is facing trial on the allegations that on 9.7.06 at about
10 a.m near Bus Stand, Rajiv Vihar, Wazirabad Road, within jurisdiction of P.S Khajuri Khas, accused was found driving a motorcycle bearing no.DL 3SV 9617 rashly or negligently so as as endanger human life and personal safety of others and as a result of which he hit against one [ENTITY] and caused grievous injury on his person. For the said offence FIR No. 282/06 was registered. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences U/[SECTION] [ACT] after completing the investigation.
2 After compliance of [SECTION] [ACT], accused was charged with commission of offences u/[SECTION] [ACT] vide order dated 02.02.2010 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 The prosecution in support of its case has examined 2 witnesses in :3 support of its case. PW1 [ENTITY] was the eye witness of the accident. P.W2 ASI [ENTITY] was the IO of the case. Accused admitted the preparation of MLCs, registration of FIR , preparation of mechanical inspection report, preparation of superdarinama and formal proof of the same was dispensed with. PE was closed as all material witnesses had been examined. 4 After closure of P.E, accused was examined U/[SECTION] [ACT] and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put to him. The accused admitted the prosecution version. However, as the prosecution witnesses have been cross examined by the accused, I deem it appropriate to dispose off the matter through a reasoned judgment. Accused chose not to lead DE and the matter was fixed for Final Arguments.
5 I have heard the Ld. APP for [ENTITY] and Ld Counsel for the accused and have perused the material on record. In the present case, the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 9.7.06 at about 10 a.m near Bus Stand, Rajiv Vihar, Wazirabad Road, within jurisdiction of P.S Khajuri Khas, accused was found driving a motorcycle bearing no.DL 3SV 9617 rashly or negligently so as as endanger human life and personal safety of others and as a result of which he hit against one [ENTITY] and caused grievous injury on his person.
6 The very first thing the prosecution was required to establish was that :4 the accused was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the incident. To establish that the accused was driving the offending vehicle, prosecution has interalia examined P.W1 [ENTITY] , the eye witness of the incident who identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle who had caused the accident. It is thus beyond doubt that the prosecution has been able to establish that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the day of incident.
7 It has been urged on behalf of the accused that P.W1 [ENTITY] did not support the prosecution version in toto and was declared hostile in part by the ld.APP for the [ENTITY]. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to the settled proposition of law on the point. It seems to be well settled by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh v. [ENTITY] of Haryana [1976] 2 SCR 921; Rabinder Kumar Dey v. [ENTITY] of Orissa, [1976] 4 SCC 233, Syed lqbal v. [ENTITY] of Karnataka, [1980] 1 SCR 95 and reiterated in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs The [ENTITY] Of Madhya Pradesh 1991 AIR 1853, that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because witness turned hostile. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
:5 8 The settled proposition of law on the point thus appears to be that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the witness turned hostile. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.
9 Coming to the factual matrix of the case, the P.W1 [ENTITY] positively identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle on the day of the incident. P.W1 could not tell some particulars of the case like the date of the incident and some other introductory facts. The incident took place on 9.7.06 while P.W1 was examined in court on 26.10.13. Human memory is neither supposed to be perfect nor infalliable. In these circumstances, merely because P.W1 could not tell the date of incident and some introductory facts would not render his testimony unbelievable especially as P.W1 has identified the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle on the day of the accident. Furthermore as per prosecution version, the accused himself received injuries in the accident and was taken to the hospital. The accused has not disputed the preparation of his MLC. No explanation has been offered by the accused to show how he received the injuries on the day of the incident. The only inescapable conclusion warranted on the facts is :6 that, the accused was himself driving the offending vehicle on the day of the accident and was injured in the accident. I hold no hestitation in holding that the accused was driving the offending vehicle on the day of the accident.
10 The prosecution was also required to establish that the accident was caused by the rashness and negligence of the accused. To prove the rashness and negligence, P.W1 [ENTITY] has deposed that accused was driving the offending vehicle at a very high speed on the date of accident and he hit against one child. As per site plan, the incident took place near the middle divider of two lane road with open visibility. Furthermore, there is a bylane near the spot of accident and as such the accused was supposed to be vigilant of any persons who come to the road from the said bylane. Furthermore as per the site plan, there was no obstruction in the view of the accused as he was coming on open road. There was also a bus stand near the spot of accident and the accused was again duty bound to be cautious as presence of pedestrians near the bus stand can not be ruled out. P.W1 [ENTITY] has specifically stated that accused was driving the vehicle at a high speed.
11 In view of my above discussions, I hold no hesitation in holding that the accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Accused has not :7 disputed the MLC of the injured. As per MLC of the injured, injured has received grievous injuries.
12 Thus, the prosecution has been able to establish that injured [ENTITY] received grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of m/cycle bearing no.DL3SV 9617 by the accused.
13 In view of above discussion, prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and accused is accordingly convicted for the offences u/[SECTION] [ACT].
Let the convict be heard on point of sentence on 16.7.2015.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SHARAD GUPTA) th COURT ON 27 JUNE, 2015 [ENTITY]. :8 P.S Kh[ENTITY] 27.6.2015 Present: Ld.APP for the [ENTITY]. Accused in person with counsel.
One P.W is present, examined, cross examined and discharged. Accused has admitted the mechanical inspection report, MLCs, superdarinama of vehicle no.DL3SV 9617 and registration of FIR. Remaining witnesses only deposed regarding manner in which the investigation of the case was conducted. P.E stands closed as all material witnesses have been examined. Accused examined u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Accused has admitted the version of the prosecution. However, as witnesses were cross examined by the accused, I deem it proper to dispose off the matter through a speaking judgment. Accused does not want to lead D.E. F.Arguments heard. Vide my separate judgment, accused is convicted for offence u/[SECTION] [ACT]. It is a matter of record that injured is untraceable despite the process having been sent to him through DCP concerned on several occasions.
Put up for hearing on sentence on 16.7.2015. Report of probation officer be called for the NDOH.
ACMM/27.6.2015 :9