IN THE COURT OF SH. A.K.AGRAWAL, MM-(East) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI [CASE NUMBER] PS: Shakarpur Offence Complained of : [SECTION] [ACT] Date of commission of Offence : 30.09.2000 Unique Case I.D. No. : 02402R0-051262002 Serial No. of case : 1874/09 STATE VS PARAS RAM S/o Sh. Daulat Ram R/o 17/30, Kalyan Puri, Delhi Accused Sh. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Durga Prasad r/o House No. 93/A, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Complainant Date of Institution : 19.02.2002 Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Date of reserving judgment/order : 24.11.2011 Date of pronouncement : 30.11.2011 Final order : ACQUITTED Brief reasons for the decision of the case: - 1.
In brief the story of prosecution is that on 30.09.2000 at about 9.30 A.M., at place Mother Dairy, Shakarpur, Flyover near School Block, the accused [ENTITY] was driving a bus bearing No. DL 1PA 9981 (hereinafter referred to as Bus) in a rash and negligent manner and in the process he struck against one [ENTITY], causing him fatal injuries, due to which he died at the spot itself. The accused driver fled away from the spot. Accordingly, an FIR was registered against unknown person u/s 279/304- A [ACT]. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared against the present accused as he was found to be the driver of offending vehicle. Challan was filed on 19.02.2002 and cognizance of offence was also [CASE NUMBER] Page no.1 of 6 taken on the same date.
2. Notice of accusation was given to the accused u/s [SECTION] [ACT] on 17.10.2002 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During PE six witnesses were examined by prosecution in support of its case in nine years.
4. PW1 is [ENTITY] who carried out the mechanical inspection of the bus. His report is Ex. PW1/A.
5. PW2 is [ENTITY], ATI from DTC, who stated that in pursuant to notice u/[SECTION] [ACT], he produced the accused in reply to the said notice as he was the driver of the said bus on the date of incident. He later on got released the bus on superdari. He proved the duty slip signed by ATI Raj Pal Singh vide Ex. PW2/D (signature of ATI Raj Pal identified by witness) which shows that the accused was on duty on the above mentioned bus vide batch No. 8685 between 6.00 A.M. to 2.30 P.M. He correctly identified the accused.
6. PW3 is Dr. [ENTITY] from Forensic Sufderjang Hospital. He prepared the post mortem report of the deceased which is Ex. PW3/A. As per the report, the cause to death of deceased was cranio cerebral damage due to blunt force.
7. PW4 is HC [ENTITY], Duty Officer, who registered the present FIR. The carbon copy of which is Ex. PW4/A.
8. PW5 is Ct. [ENTITY] who joined investigation along with SI [ENTITY].
He stated that on the date of incident, when they reached at the spot, they found body of a person whose head was crushed under wheels of bus. At [CASE NUMBER] Page no.2 of 6 the spot, one bicycle and one DTC bus bearing No. DL 1P 9981 were also present in accidental condition. Then as no eye witness was found, IO/SI [ENTITY] prepared rukka on the basis of D.D. No. 10/A and he got the case registered at the instance of IO. Thereafter, the bicycle as well as bus were seized vide memo Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B. Since the accused was not found, the IO gave notice Mark A-1 which he served on the Inspector, DTC depot, Ghazipur, pursuance to which the accused was produced by the Inspector of DTC. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW5/D & C respectively. The spot was also photographed. He correctly identified the accused.
9. PW6 is Inspector [ENTITY] who deposed about the same facts as of PW5. He further proved the rukka Ex. PW6/A and site plan Ex. PW6/B. He also got the vehicle mechanically inspected besides carrying out other investigation.
10. Thereafter, PE was closed. The eye witness [ENTITY] could not be examined before the court despite repeated opportunity. Even summons issued to him through DCP proved futile to secure his presence. The statement of the accused u/[SECTION] [ACT] r/w [SECTION] [ACT], was recorded on 26.08.2011 wherein, the accused stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that the accident took place due to the negligence of bicycle rider as he was trying to over take the bus but in the process, the handle of his bicycle struck against the front gate of bus due to which the bicycle rider lost his balance and came under the wheels of bus. No DE was lead despite opportunity being given.
11. During final arguments, it is stated by state counsel that in view of statement of PW2, it is proved that the accused was driving the offending bus at the time of accident which was also found at the spot in accidental position and further the accused has also admitted in his statement u/s [CASE NUMBER] Page no.3 of 6 313 [ACT], that the accident took place from his vehicle so the offence against the accused is proved and he is liable to be convicted.
12. On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has stated that though it is not disputed that the accident took place from the vehicle of accused but at the same time the accident took place because of negligence of deceased himself and not the negligence of accused as the deceased was trying to overtake the bus. He further argued that the only eye witness of the incident namely, [ENTITY] has not been examined so from evidence on record it cannot be said that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of accused. Accordingly, he has prayed for acquittal of the accused.
13. Having heard the submissions of the both sides, since it is undisputed that the accident took place from the vehicle driven by the accused himself as admitted by him in his statement u/[SECTION] [ACT], the only question before the court is whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the accused or not.
14. Submissions of both sides has been duly considered and the evidence on record carefully perused. In order to prove its case the prosecution has relied on Circumstantial evidence coupled with the accused's own admission that the accident took place from his vehicle, as the eye witness of accident namely [ENTITY] has not deposed in court. In "Padala Veera Reddy vs [ENTITY] of Andhra Pradesh & Others AIR 1990 SC 79", it has been held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
[CASE NUMBER] Page no.4 of 6 (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
15. In the present case, PW1, PW3 and PW4 are only formal witnesses.
Further PW2 has stated that the accused was driving the vehicle on the date of incident which fact is unrebutted by the defence. PW5 and PW6 have merely seen the offending bus as well as the dead body in an accidental condition at the spot after the accident had already taken place. They are not eye witnesses of the actual offence. The circumstances under which the accident took place have to be proved beyond doubt to prove the offence against the accused. As per prosecution, the only eye witness of the incident was one [ENTITY] however, the said witness did not appear in the court for his testimony as he remained untraceable despite best efforts. Since there is no eye witness who can prove this fact that the accused was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the court cannot merely act on the presumption that since an accident has taken place the driver of a larger vehicle is to be blamed for the accident despite there being no evidence to show the culpability/negligence of such driver. It has also been held in Lachhman v. [ENTITY] of Haryana 2000(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 727 that simply because an accident has taken place there cannot be any presumption that accident took place due to rash and [CASE NUMBER] Page no.5 of 6 negligent driving of the accused.
16. In view of the above said observations, as there is insufficient evidence to prove rash and negligent driving on the part of accused, this court is of the considered opinion that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted for offence u/s [SECTION] [ACT]. Bail bond and surety bond of accused shall be cancelled after six months in view of [SECTION] [ACT] Ordered accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on Dated: 30.11.2011 ([ENTITY]) MM(East)/KKD/30.11.2011 [CASE NUMBER] Page no.6 of 6