Delhi District Court
State vs Vinod Kumar on 13 June, 2025
________________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL, ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (EAST), KKD COURTS, DELHI
CIS No. 2932/2017
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016
PS: New Ashok Nagar
U/s. 279/337 IPC & 185/146/196 M.V. Act
JUDGMENT
(1) Name of the complainant ASI Vijay Kumar
(2) Name, parentage and address of Vinod Kumar
the accused S/o Lallu Ram
R/o H No. F-16, Old Kondli, Near
Shochalaya Janta Flat Delhi.
(3) Offence involved U/s. 279/337 IPC & 185/146/196
M.V. Act
(4) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
(5) Final order Acquitted
(6) Date of Institution 05.09.2017
(7) Date reserved for orders 06.06.2025
(8) Judgment announced on 13.06.2025
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 1 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed by
MAYANK MAYANK GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:03:44 +0530
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 09.09.2016 at about
09:00 p.m. at old Kondli Mod near State Bank of Patiyala, Delhi within
the jurisdiction of PS New Ashok Nagar, the accused was found driving
vehicle i.e. WagonR bearing no. DL-9CR-1816 in rash & negligent
manner so as to endanger the human life & safety of others and hit the
complainant Swami Omji due to which the complainant suffered simple
injury and thus, the accused committed offences punishable u/s U/s.
279/337 IPC. Further the accused was driving the uninsured vehicle under
the influence of alcohol and thus the accused also committed offence
punishable under section 185/146/196 MV Act.
2. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet against accused was
prepared and filed in the court whereupon cognizance was taken. After
complying with the provisions of Sec.207 Cr.P.C., charge for offences
u/s.279/337 IPC and U/s 185/146/196 MV Act was framed against the
accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 07 (seven) witnesses.
(a) PW-1 Sh. Swami Omji deposed that on 09.09.2016, he was returning
from Noida to his residence at Mandir Marg after participation in a live
debate on Sudershan channel. He was sitting as a pillion rider on a scooter
being driven by one of his Bhakat Sh. M. Jain. At about 9 PM, after they
reached at opposite Suddh Bhojnalaya opposite State Bank of India
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 2 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed by
MAYANK MAYANK GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:03:50 +0530
Kondli, they stopped the scooter to have meal at Suddh Bhojnalay. He was
crossing the road to go to the Bhojnalay. In the meantime, the accused was
also coming driving a Wagon R car. It was dark at that time and therefore,
he could not see the registration number of the same. He had seen the
number of the car in the PS New Ashok Nagar later on. Behind the car of
the accused there were two other persons wearing skull cap and therefore,
they were probably muslims, who were coming on a motorcycle. When
he deboarded the scooter at the spot, the accused had hit him with his car
and he came under the said car. The tyre of the car had run over him. The
public persons had apprehended the accused and they had also removed
PW-1 from under the car. His Bhakat Mr. Jain had called the PCR from
his mobile phone. PCR officials had come at the spot and they took PW-1
alongwith the accused in the PCR. In the meanwhile, PW-1 had seen that
the two persons who were coming on the motorcycle as abovesaid had
come to the accused and said to him, ” humne tumhe lakho rupey diye the
Swami Omji ki hatya karne ke liye lekin tumne nahi kiya isliye hamare
paise wapis do”. Thereafter, PW-1 asked both persons who were saying to
accused for killing him. The both persons stated that they are not relative
of the accused but they are the ISI Agent and they have intention to kill
PW-1 as he was speaking against ISI and Arvind Kejriwal, CM of Delhi
on television. Then he asked the name of both persons but they did not
disclose their names. PCR brought him alongwith accused in the PS New
Ashok Nagar. Duty officer of PS New Ashok Nagar met him and he
requested for lodging the FIR but the police officer did not take any action.
Thereafter, PCR officials took PW-1 and accused to LBS Hospital. At the
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 3 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed by
MAYANK MAYANK GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:03:56 +0530
emergency of LBS Hospital the MLA Manoj of Aam Aadmi Party of that
area was also present infront of the casualty doctors and he was directing
to the doctors for not mentioning the details of injury to PW-1 and he was
pressurizing the doctors for the same and he also directed the doctors to
mention the false fact of alcohol condition of accused Vinod. Actually
accused was not in drunken condition but due to incident of hitting of a
car, PW-1 sustained fractures on his left leg, left joint shoulder then he
requested doctors to conduct X-Ray of his fractures but doctor had refused
to do so and stated that he has pressure of the local MLA for not
conducting my X-Ray. The muslims boys who had talked to accused in the
PCR also came in the PS and they had pressurized the duty officer and IO
for not receiving his complaint. At that time he was having his complaint
which was written in the PS by him. When PCR took him and accused in
the LBS Hospital, both muslim persons also came in the hospital by
following them. Thereafter, the IO and PCR officials took PW-1 forcefully
inside the police booth/room situated inside the hospital and accused
Vinod and his two associates (muslim persons) assisting the police
officials. Inside the police room, IO took out his pistol, accused Vinod
pressed his throat and one muslim person had tried to press his testicles.
Thereafter, somehow PW-1 managed to remove hand of accused Vinod.
Accused Vinod pressed his hand on my pocket and forcefully snatched Rs.
1100/- kept inside the PW-1 pocket. Thereafter, police officials alongwith
accused persons took PW-1 to PS New Ashok Nagar again. PW-1 written
again a complaint including this incident and gave to duty officer for
registration of FIR but he refused to do so. The said duty officer illegally
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 4 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed by
MAYANK MAYANK GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:04:05 +0530
detained PW-1 in lock up at the instance of IO. Prior to illegally confining
him to lock up, then PW-1 called to ACP one namely Jha Ji, acting SHO
Madam Malti. They had assured PW-1 that they will reach the PS very
soon and got released PW-1 from the lock up and also got registered the
FIR but both did not come in the PS till 12:15 AM. Thereafter, PW-1
called the then Police Commissioner. On direction of Police
Commissioner, he got released from the lock up. Police had not taken his
complaint and not registered his FIR and had not taken any action against
the accused persons. Thereafter, PW-1 personally met PM Sh. Narender
Modi Ji, Home Minister Sh. Raj Nath Singh and LG of Delhi. They had
directed to police for registering his FIR u/s 307/397/342/506/120B/34
IPC but police had not registered the FIR accordingly and lodged the FIR
in some minor offences on 10.09.2016. Then PW-1 got treatment from
Safdurjung Hospital of his fractures. He submits original treatment papers,
X-Ray Report etc to SHO to taking proper action and he assured him
about that he will submit his treatment papers and reports with charge-
sheet alongwith relevant sections. PW-1 also requested SHO and Police
Commissioner to transfer my case to Crime Branch or Special Branch of
Delhi Police as IO was assisting/conniving to accused persons. (Till date,
police had not given copy of FIR or any charge-sheet to him. PW-1
continuously talked to IO regarding investigation and court proceeding of
his case but he never gave any detail of his case. IO had not given him
even summon of appearing today in court but he somehow know the
present date and he came himself. Today he has brought his typed
complaint given to PM to SHO regarding his real grievances.) Police had
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 5 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 MAYANK by
Digitally signed
MAYANK
GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:04:15 +0530
not taken proper action in his complaint. Complaint is Ex. PW-1/A bearing
his signature at point A. Police had never recorded his statement.
(At this stage, statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of witness is shown to witness but
he refused the same as it is not his own statement and replied that police
had never recorded his statement. Copy of statement is marked as Mark-
X1.)
The witness correctly identified the vehicle i.e. WagonR from photographs
which are Ex. P1 to P4. He can identify the other accused persons who
asked the accused Vinod for killing him and also participated in crime
occurred at police booth room situated in LBS Hospital. He is under
treatment at present. PW-1 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
accused despite opportunity is being given.
(b) PW-2 SI Jahid Hussain deposed that on 10.09.2016, he was posted as PS
Preet Vihar as duty officer and he was also the duty officer from 12:00
midnight to 08:00 pm. On the same day he received a rukka at about
12:10 pm from HC Vijay for registration of FIR and on that basis he got
registered the FIR which is FIR No 497/16, PS New Ashok Nagar
registered and as Ex. PW2/A (OSR) bearing his signature at point A. He
had also issued certificate u/s 65 B of I.E. Act which is Ex. PW1/B
bearing his signature at point A. He had also mentioned the endorsement
on rukka which is Ex. PW1/C from point X to X1 bearing his signature at
point A and he had handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Ram
Naresh to be given to HC Vijay. PW-2 was not cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for accused despite opportunity is being given.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 6 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed
PS New Ashok Nagar MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:04:56 +0530
(c) PW-3 Amit Mittal deposed that on he had been running Sai Nursing
Home since the year, 2014 and there have been CCTV cameras installed
in the nursing home since then. On 09.09.2016, one police official had
visited his nursing home and asked PW-3 to provide the CCTV footage
recording of the CCTV camera installed on the main gate of the nursing
home. PW-3 had provided the footage recording in a pan drive to the
police. PW-3 do not recollect if he had given the recordings in a pen drive
or CD. The seizure memo of the recordings is Ex. PW-3/A bearing his
signatures at point A. PW-1 have placed on record certificate U/s 65B of
Indian Evidence Act. The CD of the CCTV footage recording and the said
certificate are Ex.PW-3/B (colly) and the certificate bears his signature at
point A. PW-3 was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused
despite opportunity is being given.
(d) PW-4 Mukesh Jain deposed that in the year 2016, PW-1 had an
interview at Sudarshan Channel at Sector-57, Noida. At around 8.30 p.m.
– 9.00 p.m., they were returning from Sudarshan Channel with the injured
Swami Om Ji. They were on a scooty and they stopped the scooty near
Kondli Mod to have food at Sakahari Bhojnalaya. They stopped at the
tiraha near Kondli Mod but he did not remember the name of the tiraha or
the place where the tiraha was located. PW-4 do not know if that area is
called Kondli Mod or not. They both were standing at the side of the road
waiting to cross the road and go to the Bhojnalaya. Suddenly, one car
wagon R, whose number PW-4 do not remember, came in speed and hit
Swami Om Ji due to which he fell down on the road. PW-4 helped him to
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 7 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL
GOEL
Date: 2025.06.13
17:05:03 +0530
stand and Swami Om Ji called the police at 100 number. The driver of the
car was made to stop there. The driver of the Wagon R car apologized and
stated that he made a mistake. The police came and after which, he along
with Swami Om Ji and driver of the car went to the PS. The driver of the
said car is present in the Court and his name is Vinod Kumar. The PW-4
pointed towards the person wearing white shirt, who disclosed himself as
Vinod Kumar. The accused Vinod is correctly identified by the PW-4.
PW-4 stated that PW-1 gave a complaint at PS in which PW-1 stated that
this was an attempt to kill him as some terrorist organization is after him.
PW-4 was partly examined and thereafter he was never examined by the
Ld. APP for State and thereafter he is dropped from the list of prosecution
witnesses being not traceable vide order dt. 12.11.2024.
(e) PW-5 T.U. Siddiqui deposed on he is a government approved surveyor
and loss assessors and working for more than 40 years independently in
this field. His services were engaged in the present case to inspect the
vehicle of the case. At this stage, the court file is shown to the witness
and asked to identify the mechanical inspection report. The witness after
perusing the file identified the mechanical inspection report prepared by
him which is Ex.PW-5/A bearing his signatures at point-A. PW-5 was
duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
(f) PW-6 ASI Ram Naresh deposed that on 10.09.2016, he was posted at PS
New Ashok Nagar as constable. On that day, PW-6 was present in the PS.
At about 12 midnight, PW-6 was handed over copy of FIR and rukka by
duty officer with direction to hand over the same to the IO HC Vijay at
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 8 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed
PS New Ashok Nagar MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:05:11 +0530
New Kondli. Thereafter, he reached at New Kondli where he met HC
Vijay and handed over copy of FIR and rukka to him. IO prepared the site
plan at the spot. The WagonR car bearing no. DL-9CR-1816 was seized
vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW-6/A bearing his signature at point A.
The accused Vinod is correctly identified by PW-6 in the court. The
accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW-6/B bearing his
signature at point A. RC of the vehicle and DL of the accused were seized
vide seizure memo which are Ex. PW-6/C and Ex. PW-6/D both bear his
signature at point A. Accused was released on bail. His statement was
recorded. PW-6 correctly identified the case property from the
photographs already Ex.PW1 to 4. PW-6 is duly cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for accused.
(g) PW-7 SI Vijay Kumar that on 09.09.2016, he was posted as HC at PS
New Ashok Nagar. On that day, PW-7 was on emergency duty 08.00 p.m
to 08.00 a.m. During emergency duty, he had received the DD No. 47A,
regarding accident. Copy of the said DD No. is Mark 7A. Thereafter, PW-
7 alongwith Ct. Ram Naresh reached at the spot i.e Kondali Mor and came
to know that injured persons had gone to PS. Thereafter, they returned to
PS, where injured Swami Omjee and driver/accused Vinod Kumar met
him. Offending vehicle was also found in the PS, which was taken by the
accused after the accident. They had taken the injured person Swami
Omjee to the LBS hospital, where he was medically examined. Accused
was also medically examined in the LBS Hospital. He had collected the
MLC of injured, on which concerned doctor had opined the nature of the
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 9 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar Digitally signed
FIR No. 497/2016 MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
PS New Ashok Nagar 17:05:25 +0530
injury as simple. In the MLC of accused, accused was found to be taken
alcohol of BAC 62%. When they were going to LBS hospital, injured had
shown them the spot. After medical examination, injured left the hospital
without any intimation. He returned to the PS alongwith the accused and
waited for the complainant but complainant did not return to PS.
Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW7/A on the basis of DD bearing
no. 47 A and handed over the same to duty officer for registration of FIR.
Thereafter, he visited the spot and prepared the site plain which is Ex.
PW7/B, bearing his signature at point A. No eye witness was found at the
spot. In the meantime, Ct. Ram Naresh came at the spot and handed over
the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. He had mentioned particulars
of the FIR on site plan. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and enquired
from the accused and the accused disclosed that accused had driven the
offending vehicle and caused the accident as accused was in inebriated
condition due to alcohol consumed by the accused in the office. He
recorded the statement of the complainant on the basis of his narration
made in the LBS hospital. He had seized offending vehicle WagonR car
bearing registration no. DL9CR-1816 vide seizure memo already Ex.
PW6/A bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he had also seized the
DL of the accused and RC of the vehicle produced by him vide seizure
memo already Ex. PW 6/D bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he
had arrested the accused vide arrest memo already Ex. PW6/B bearing his
signature at point B. Accused was released on police bail after producing
the surety being the offence bailable one. He had seized the RC of the
motorcycle produced by the surety vide seizure memo already Ex.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 10 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL
GOEL
Date: 2025.06.13
17:05:33 +0530
PW6/C, bearing his signature at point B. He had recorded the statement of
Ct. Ram Naresh and deposited the case properties in the malkhana. On the
same day, injured Swami Om Jee visited to the PS. He had asked him to
give his statement but PW-1 did not do so and left the PS. On the next
day, he visited the spot and found a CCTV camera at Sai Nursing home,
which is situated at the opposite road of the spot and he had collected the
CCTV footage of the relevant period i.e. 21:25 hrs to 21:35 hrs dated
09.09.2016 in the CD from the owner of the said nursing home. He had
seized above the CD vide seizure memo already Ex. PW3/A, bearing his
signature at point C. He had got saved the said the CCTV footage in the
hard disk of the CCTV camera. The time of the CCTV camera was set
different from the real time. He had recorded the statement of Sh. Amit
Mittal. Thereafter, he came to PS and got the mechanical inspection from
mechanical inspector of the offending vehicle. He had collected the report
thereof from the mechanical expert T.U. Siddiqui had recorded his
statement. During investigation, it was found that the above said offending
vehicle was registered in the name of accused Vinod Kumar and it was
found without valid insurance. He visited the house of the complainant
but of no avail. He obtained the PCR form Ex. PW7/D and had contacted
the PCR caller namely Mukesh Jain, who informed that he is the secretary
of complainant, who came to the PS. He enquired him and he disclosed
that he was with the complainant at the time of the accident. He had also
given his written statement to him and the same is Ex. PW7/C, bearing his
signature at point A. He enquired him about the address and mobile
number of injured Swami Om Jee however, he did not disclose the same
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 11 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed
by MAYANK
MAYANK GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date:
2025.06.13
17:05:39 +0530
and stated to him that complainant had gone to Bombay to participate in
Big Boss. He had called various time to Swami OmJee and ensured him to
come to PS but he never turned up. He had issued the notice u/s 160
Cr.P.C to the complainant to join the investigation of the present case but
he never joined investigation. The above said notice is E.PW7/E (colly
running into three pages), all bearing his signatures at point A and in all
the notices, it was replied by the concerned person that complainant did
not reside at the given address and therefore that he could not record the
supplementary statement of the complainant. After completion of
investigation, he prepared the charge sheet and the same was filed before
the court. He correctly identified the accused in the court today. He
correctly identified the offending vehicle from the photographs already
Ex. P1 to P4. PW-7 was duly cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for
accused.
4. Statement of accused under section 294 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he
admitted the registration of FIR and MLC No 13347/2016 of injured
Swami Omji MLC is Ex. A2.
5. Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused U/s 313, Cr.P.C. was
recorded by the court on 31.05.2025, in which accused took the plea that
he was falsely implicated in the present case and he is innocent and the
alleged accident never happened.
6. Since accused opted not lead any evidence, therefore, DE was closed.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 12 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 MAYANK by
Digitally signed
MAYANK
GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:05:45 +0530
7. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for
accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
8. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is
presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution
to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The general
burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution
and it never shifts.
9. Section 279 of IPC provides punishment for rash driving or riding on
a public way and lays down that:-
“whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public away
in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human
life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with
both.”
10. Section 337 of IPC provides punishment for causing grievous hurt by
act endangering life or personal safety of others and lays down that:-
“whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so
rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the
personal safety of others, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five
one thousand rupees, or with both.”
11. In the present case, the identity of accused and the offending vehicle is
very well established by the prosecution and moreover the accused
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 13 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
Digitally signed
FIR No. 497/2016 MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:05:54 +0530
himself did not dispute the identity of the offending vehicle at any stage of
trial. Accordingly, it is established that accused was driving the offending
vehicle at the time of incident.
12. Now, the next question that remains to be adjudicated is whether the
accused was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The
prosecution has examined the complainant i.e. PW1 to the said incident to
prove his case. However, in the testimony of PW1, the manner of driving
is not deposed by PW1 and it is deposed by PW1 that ” the accused had
hit me with his car and I came under the said car”. PW4 only deposed
that ” Suddenly one car wagon, whose number I do not remember, came
in speed and hit Swami Om Ji due to which he fell down on the road. I
helped him to stand and Swami Om ji called the police at 100 number.
The driver of the car was made to stop there. The driver of the WagonR
car apologized and stated that he had a mistake” but nothing came in his
testimony as to how and in what manner the accused is driving the vehicle
in rash and negligent manner. The prosecution has to prove the rashness
and negligence driving on the part of the accused specifically and
categorically. There is lot of contradiction in the testimony of PW1 and
PW4. It is deposed by PW1 during his examination-in-chief that he came
under the car and public persons had removed him from under the car,
however, it is deposed by PW4 during his examination-in-chief that PW1
fell on the road after the car hit him and he helped PW1 to stand. It is
stated by PW1 during his examination that PW4 called the PCR, however,
PW4 during his examination deposed that PW1 called at 100 number.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 14 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL
GOEL
Date: 2025.06.13
17:06:01 +0530
PW7 during his cross-examination deposed that when the complainant
met him, no open injury was seen on his body. He further deposed that
complainant never joined the investigation after the date of incident.
Therefore, the prosecution fails to prove that the accused was driving the
vehicle in rash and negligent manner.
13. In AIR 2009 SC 1621 State of Karnataka v. Muralidha, the Apex
Court has considered as to what constitutes rashness and negligence, as
under:
“6………..A negligent act is an act done without doing
something which a reasonable man guided upon those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs would do or act which a prudent or
reasonable man would not do in the circumstances
attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done
precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of which rashness is
the species. It has sometimes been observed that in
rashness the action is done precipitately that the
mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a
hope that they will not. Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director
of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at p. 583 : 2 All ER
552) observed as under :
“Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is
not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are
degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of
negligence is required to be proved before the felony is
established. Probably of all the epithets that can be applied
‘recklessness’ most nearly covers the case. It is difficult to
visualize a case of death caused by reckless driving in the
connotation of that term in ordinary speech which would
not justify a conviction for manslaughter; but it is probably
not all embracing, for ‘recklessness’ suggests an_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 15 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signedPS New Ashok Nagar MAYANK by MAYANK
GOEL
GOEL Date: 2025.06.13
17:06:19 +0530
indifference to risk whereas the accused may have
appreciated the risk and intended to avoid it, and yet shown
in the means adopted to avoid the risk such a high degree
of negligence as would justify a conviction.”
7…. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise
reasonable and proper care and the extent of its
reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances
of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the
consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow
but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of
duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and
degree of negligence are determining factors. A question
whether the accused’s conduct amounted to culpable
rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as
to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a
prudent and reasonable man would consider to be
sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case.
Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or
wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or
wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury
but done without any intention to cause injury or
knowledge that it would probably be caused.
8…….. As noted above, “Rashness” consists in hazarding a
dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so,
and that it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a
case in running the risk of doing such an act with
recklessness or indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and
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 it was the imperative duty of the
accused person to have adopted.
9. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 16 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
FIR No. 497/2016 Digitally signed
MAYANK by MAYANK
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL
GOEL
Date: 2025.06.13
17:06:25 +0530
Holloway, J., in these words: “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.
Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness
that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in
circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised
the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he
would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises
from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection.”
(See In re: Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad HCR 119)”.
14. Now qua the offence under section 185/146/196 MV Act, in the MLC of
the accused, the accused was found to be taken alcohol of BAC 62%. It is
also deposed by PW7 during his examination that on investigation, it was
found that the abovesaid offending vehicle was registered in the name of
the accused Vinod Kumar and it was found without valid insurance.
However, no evidence has been led by the accused in his defence to prove
that he was not driving the uninsured offending vehicle under the
influence of alcohol. Therefore, the prosecution successfully proved that
the accused was driving the uninsured offending vehicle under the
influence of alcohol.
15. It is settled preposition that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of
accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that too by leading independent,
reliable and unimpeachable evidence. There is no controversy to the
proposition that the accused is entitled to the benefit of every doubt
occurring in the prosecution case. The general principles of criminal
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 17 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
Digitally signed
FIR No. 497/2016 by MAYANK
MAYANK GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date:
2025.06.13
17:06:31 +0530
jurisprudence, namely, that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt and that the accused is entitled to the benefit of a
reasonable doubt, are to be borne in mind.
16. In the backdrop of aforesaid discussions, facts and circumstances and
material available on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the
charges u/s 279/337 IPC but successfully proved the charges u/s
185/146/196 M.V. Act against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.
Accordingly, accused Vinod Kumar is acquitted of the said offences
u/s 279/337 IPC and convicted for the offences u/s 185/146/196 M.V.
Act.
17. Let the copy of judgment be given free of costs to the convict.
18. Let the convict be heard on quantum of sentence.
Announced in open court (MAYANK GOEL)
on 13th June, 2025 ACJM:EAST: KKD COURTS
DELHI/13.06.2025
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CIS No. 2932/2017 Page No. 18 of 18
State Vs. Vinod Kumar
Digitally signed
FIR No. 497/2016 by MAYANK
MAYANK GOEL
PS New Ashok Nagar GOEL Date:
2025.06.13
17:06:36 +0530
[ad_1]
Source link