Delhi District Court
State vs Jaishiram on 20 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHINAV AHLAWAT JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09 (SOUTH-WEST) DWARKA
COURTS: DELHI
State Vs. : Jaishiram
FIR No : 66/2019
U/s : 279/338 IPC and 3/181, 39/192 and 146/196
Motor Vehicles Act
P.S. : Jafarpur Kalan
1. CNR No. of the Case : DLSW020562242019
2. Date of commission of offence : 01.05.2019
3. Date of institution of the case : 02.11.2019
4. Name of the complainant : Dharamveer
5. Name of accused, parentage & : Jaishiram
address S/o Ramfere
R/o Timirpur, Munder
PS Pali, Hardoi, U. P.
6. Offence complained of : 279/338 IPC and
Section 3/181, 39/192
and 146/196 of Motor
Vehicles Act
7. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
8. Final order : Acquitted
9. Date of final order : 20.05.2025
Argued by:- Mr. Parvez Alam, Ld. APP for the State
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Ld. counsel for accused.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 1 of 26 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:12:00
+0530
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
FACTUAL MATRIX-
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 01.05.2019 at
about 08:00 PM, at Ram Kumar’s Farm, near Peepal Tree, BSES
Pole no.495, Road from Surhera Village towards Khera Delhi,
accused was driving e-rickshaw (hereinafter, “offending
vehicle”) in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger
human life and personal safety of others and hit against one
motorcycle which was being driven by Dharamveer, thereby
causing grievous injuries to him and thereby committed the
offences punishable under Sections 279/338 of IPC. Further,
accused was driving the said e-rickshaw without valid driving
licence and insurance and thereby committed offence punishable
under Section 3/181, 39/192 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act,
for which FIR no.66/2019 was registered at the police station
Jafarpur Kalan, New Delhi.
INVESTIGATION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
PERSONS
2. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer
(hereinafter, “IO”) undertook investigation and on culmination of
the same, the chargesheet against the accused was filed. The Ld.
Predecessor of this court took the cognizance against the accused
and summons were issued to the accused. On his appearance, a
copy of the chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of section
207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter,
“CrPC“). On finding a prima facie case against the accused,
notice under Sections 279/338 of IPC and Section 3/181, 39/192
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 2 of 26 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:12:07
+0530
and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act was served upon accused.
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral and
documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt: –
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 Dharamveer
PW-2 Sri Niwas
PW-3 Charanjeet
PW-4 Dr. Sunil Dalal
PW-5 SI Omkar
PW-6 Vimal Kumar
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.PW1/A Statement of complainant
Ex.PW2/A Security bond
Ex.PW2/B Panchnama
Ex.PW4/A MLC no.940
Ex.PW5/A Tehrir
Ex.PW5/B Seizure memo qua e-rickshaw
Ex.PW5/C Seizure memo qua motorcycle
Ex.PW5/D Arrest memo
Ex.PW5/E Personal search memo
Ex.PW5/F Disclosure statement of accused
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
Ex.A1 FIR no.66/2019 alongwith certificate u/S 65B
of IEA
Ex.A2 DD no.36A, 37A, 39A, 47A all dated
01.05.2019
Ex.A3 Mechanical inspection reports of motorcycle
and e-rickshaw
Ex.A4 Entry in register no.19
4. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses,
the same are as follows.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 3 of 26 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:12:12
+0530
PW1 Dharamveer deposed that on 01.05.2019, he was going
towards his home at Village Surheda after taking household
articles from Najafgarh on his bike make TVS Suzuki. He
stated that on the way towards his home, in front of the field of
Ram Kumar near tree of peepal, it was about 08:00 pm, one E-
rickshaw yellow colour came at high speed in zigzag manner
and hit his motorcycle. He further stated that the driver of E-
rickshaw was on wrong side in his way in right side of the road
and came in his side that is left side of road and hit him and due
to that accident occurred. He further stated that in his opinion, it
was the total fault of the driver of the E-rickshaw and he was in
his right direction. He further stated that due to above hit, he fell
down with motorcycle and sustained injuries in his leg and
driver of the e-rickshaw ran away from the place of occurrence
with E-rickshaw. He further stated that at the time of accident,
three persons were sitting in E-rickshaw and some one came
from his behind in the same way and took him to RTRM
hospital and his statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded at Trauma
Center, AIIMS on next day. He further stated that he sustained
injuries in his right hand fingers also that is why he put his
thumb impression instead of signature. He further stated that
during treatment, he came to know that his right leg and finger
and arms of the right side were fractured and during operation a
steel rod was installed. The witness has correctly identified the
accused present in the court, photographs of e-rickshaw as
Ex.PW1/P1, photographs of spot Ex. PW1/P2 and photographs
of spot with motorcycle as Ex.PW1/P3. In the cross-
examination, he stated that he was alone on his bike on the day
of incident. He further stated that he did not know when his
grandson visited the place of occurrence and he was having a
Digitally signed
by ABHINAVFIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 4 of 26 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:12:18
+0530
valid driving licence at the time of incident. He further stated
that he had been retired from the post of ASI and he did not
remember the household articles which he was carrying on the
day of incident due to long time. He further stated that some
articles were in diggi and some in a carry bag and carry bag was
tighten in motorcycle. He further stated that he did not know the
maximum speed of E-rickshaw and there was no divider on the
road at the place of occurrence. He further stated that there was
street light on such road and the street light was ON on the day
of incident. He further stated that at the time of accident no
other person was present there and e-rickshaw was coming from
front side and he was coming from opposite direction and the
speed of the motorcycle was at about 30-35 km/hour.
5. PW2 Sri Niwas deposed that on 01.05.2019, he received a call at
about 06:30 to 07:00 pm from an unknown number and he was
informed that his father met with an accident on Kharkhari Road.
Thereafter, he went to the spot by his car and saw that the
motorcycle of his father was lying on the road in an accidental
condition. He stated that he went to RTRM Hospital in
emergency and he met his father over there but he did not witness
the accident in question. He further stated that his father was then
referred to AIIMS and he received the motorcycle bearing
registration no.DL4SCQ9398 on superdari for which he
furnished the security bond Ex.PW2/A and IO prepared
panchnama of the said vehicle Ex.PW2/B.
6. PW3 Charanjeet deposed that during February-March 2019, he
did not remember the exact date, at about 06:00 pm, he was
going to his house from Delhi in his car. He stated that when he
reached near Government School at Surhera Village, he saw
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 5 of 26 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.20
17:12:23
+0530
some persons standing at the spot and he got outside of his car
and saw that one person in an injured condition was sitting on the
road and his one leg was broken. He further stated that there was
no vehicle at the spot at that time and he inquired the public
persons present there and one of them told him that they had
informed the police. Thereafter, he with the help of one of the
public persons lifted the injured and made him lie down on back
seat of his car. He further stated that other public person refused
to accompany him to the hospital and thereafter, he took the
injured to RTRM Hospital in his car. He further stated that the
injured gave him the phone number of his son on the way and he
called up the son of injured and informed him about the accident.
He further stated that he then got the injured admitted at
emergency at RTRM Hospital and one of the police official met
him at the hospital and noted down his details. Thereafter, he
came back to his house. As PW3 did not support the case of
prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was granted permission
to put him questions in the nature of cross-examination, wherein
he stated that the leg of injured was bleeding and IO did not
record his statement and inquired him about the case
telephonically. In the cross-examination, he stated that he did not
witness the accident in question.
7. PW4 Dr. Sunil Dalal deposed that on 01.05.2019, patient
Dharambir admitted in RTRM hospital and he medically
examined the patient namely Dharambir and prepare MLC
no.940 Ex.PW4/A and gave his final opinion which was grievous
in nature and after examining the patient he found that there were
some injuries on the knee of the patient and thereafter, he
referred to Ortho SR for examination of the patient. He further
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 6 of 26 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:12:27
+0530
stated that Ortho SR gave opinion the patient knee was fracture
(as per X-ray report) and after that the patient was referred to
Higher Centre.
8. PW5 SI Omkar deposed that on 01.05.2019, he received DD
no.36A regarding an accident and thereafter, he alongwith ASI
Sudesh left the PS and reached at the spot. He further stated that
after reaching the spot, they found one motorcycle TVS bearing
registration no.DL-4SCQ-9398 in accidental condition. He
further stated that they also came to know that injured already
shifted to RTRM Hospital in a private vehicle and he left the spot
and reached at the RTRM Hospital where he came to know that
injured namely Dharamvir S/o Parasram admitted in the hospital
vide MLC no.1940/19 and he also came to know that injured
shifted to Trauma Centre, Safdarjung by the doctors. He further
stated that he left the hospital and again reached at the spot where
he met with a person namely Jai Shri Ram who committed the
said incident, who was apprehended by some public persons.
Thereafter, he handed over the custody of accused to ASI Sudesh
and he went to Safdarjung Hospital where he recorded statement
of complainant. He further stated that on the basis of which he
prepared tehrir Ex.PW5/A and thereafter, he left the hospital and
reached at the spot again. He further stated that after reaching the
spot, he handed over tehrir to ASI Sudesh Kumar and got the FIR
registered. He further stated that he prepared the site plan, seized
e-rickshaw vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B, seized the motorcycle
bearing registration no.DL-4SCQ-9398 vide seizure memo
Ex.PW5/C, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/D,
conducted personal search of accused vide personal search memo
Ex.PW5/E and recorded disclosure statement of accused
Digitally
signed by
ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 7 of 26 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.20
17:12:32
+0530
Ex.PW5/F. Thereafter, he released the accused after furnishing
the surety bond. He further stated that he left the spot alongwith
ASI Sudesh and case property and after reaching the PS, he
deposited the case property in malkhana. He further stated that he
asked accused to produce the DL and insurance, pollution
documents of e-rickshaw which were used by the accused at the
time of accident. He further stated that he handed over both the
vehicles to Sh. Dharmender Sehrawat for mechanical inspection
and he handed over to him mechanical inspection report of both
the vehicles. He further stated that he recorded statement of
witnesses u/S 161 Cr. P. C. and after completion of investigation,
he submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned court. The
witness has correctly identified both the vehicles through
photographs. In the cross-examination, he stated that he was not
the eye-witness of the incident and he did not record statement of
persons who were present at the spot and told him that the injured
was already shifted to hospital. He further stated that no CCTV
camera was installed at the spot and no eye-witness and accused
were found at the spot when he firstly reached at the spot. He
further stated that some public persons handed over to him
custody of accused but he only recorded statement of one person
namely Abhinandan @ Happy, who was relative of injured
Dharamvir. Abhinandan @ Happy was not present at the spot
when he firstly reached at the spot. He further stated that he did
not record statement of other public persons who were present at
the spot and handed over to him custody of the accused
alongwith Abhinandan @ Happy. He further stated that there was
no divider and street light at the spot and no skid marks of the
tyres were found at the spot and no blood stains were found at the
spot or at the tyre of offending vehicle.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 8 of 26 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:12:37
+0530
9. PW6 Vimal Kumar Dubey deposed that he had no knowledge
about the present case and the offending e-rickshaw in the
present case was not belonged to him and he did not know the
person who was driving the e-rickshaw at the time of accident.
He stated that he did not give any statement to the police
regarding the accident in the present case. As PW6 did not
support the case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld. APP was
granted permission to put him questions in the nature of cross-
examination, wherein he denied the suggestion that accused was
driving the said e-rickshaw at the time of accident and after the
accident accused came to him and shared the whole incident with
him.
10. On account of admission of accused u/s 294 Cr.P.C, remaining
witnesses in the prosecution list were dropped and the formal
proof of the documents sought to be proved by them was
dispensed with. No other PW was left to be examined; hence, PE
was closed.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
EVIDENCE
11. Thereafter, before the start of defence evidence in order to allow
the accused person to personally explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing in evidence against him, the statement
of the accused person was recorded on 30.03.2024 without oath
under section 281 r/w 313 CrPC, wherein he has stated that he
was innocent and had falsely been implicated in the present case.
He further stated that he was present near the fields of Surhera
Village when two police officials asked him to give them lift to
RTRM Hospital and he took them. Later on he came to know that
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 9 of 26 ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.20
17:12:42
+0530
he was implicated in the present case. He further stated that he
does not want to lead defence evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the
accused at length. I have also given my thoughtful consideration
to the material appearing on record.
13. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that all the ingredients of
the offence are fulfilled in the present case. He has argued that
prosecution witnesses have categorically deposed about the
commission of offence and there is no ground to disbelieve their
testimony. He further contends that the documentary evidence
has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. As such, it is
prayed that the accused be punished for the said offences.
14. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the
State has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Ld. counsel further argued that the entire case of the
prosecution is false and fabricated and the same is evident from
the material inconsistencies and contradictions borne out from
the material on record. It is argued that the identity of the accused
being the driver of the offending vehicle is not established and
prosecution has failed to discharge the burden cast upon it. As
such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said
offence.
INGREDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
15. The allegations levelled against accused are segregated into two
parts:
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Page 10 of 26
Date:
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:12:46
+0530
The first set of allegations revolves around commission of
offences under Section 279/338 IPC which proscribes
punishment for driving of vehicle on a public way in such a rash
or negligent manner and causing grievous hurt to any person by
such rash or negligent act. Second set of allegations against the
accused revolves around commission of offence under Sections
3/181, 39/192 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act which
prescribes punishment for driving without driving licence and
without valid insurance.
16. Let us deal with the first set of allegations against the accused.
The allegations pertaining to these offences are that on the given
date, time and place, the accused was driving the offending
vehicle i.e. e-rickshaw in a rash and negligent manner so as to
endanger human life and personal safety of others and due to his
rash and negligent driving, the accident was caused by him in
which the aforesaid e-rickshaw collided with the motorcycle of
injured Dharamveer which caused grievous injuries to him.
17. The position of law with respect to offence u/s 279 IPC is
discussed in the case of case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) 133(2006) DLT 562, wherein it was held that;
“In Badri Prasad (supra) the essential ingredients of Section
279 IPC are that there must be rash and negligent driving or
riding on a public way and the act must be such so as to
endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to
any person. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to
establish the offence either under Section 279 or Section
304A, the commission of a rash and negligent act has to be
proved”.
18. Further, what would constitute rash and negligent act has been
described by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 11 of 26 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:12:51
+0530
Aynuddin @ Miyan Vs. State of Andra Pradesh decided on
28.07.2000, in the following words:-
“A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a
deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the
sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable
rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with
reckless- ness and with indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with
reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against
in- jury to the public generally or to any individual in
particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle
to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.”
19. Besides, the ingredients mentioned above, the identity of the
accused as driver of the vehicle must also be established
separately by the prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the
accused.
20. It is trite law that the burden always lies upon the prosecution to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable
evidence and that the law does not permit the court to punish the
accused on the basis of moral conviction or on account of
suspicion alone. Also, it is well settled that accused is entitled to
the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and
such doubt entitles him to acquittal.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
21. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution
was under the obligation to prove the following for establishing
the case against the accused person:
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 12 of 26 ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.20
17:12:55
+0530
b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and negligent
driving of the accused at a public place which caused grievous
injuries to the complainant/injured.
RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED;
22. The material witness to prove the identity of accused is only PW1
injured Dharamveer being the only witness of the incident as
examined by prosecution. PW2 is the son of PW1 who after
receiving the call from unknown number went to the spot where
he saw the accidental motorcycle of his father whereafter he went
to RTRM Hospital where he met his father. Similarly, PW3
submitted that when he was travelling from the spot, he saw
some persons standing at the spot and he got down from his car
and saw injured person with broken leg. Thereafter, he took the
injured to hospital in his car. PW3 stated that he called son of
injured through his mobile phone. PW3 admitted in his cross-
examination that he was not the eye-witness of incident. The
remaining witnesses PW4, PW5 and PW6 are also not the
witness of incident rather part of investigation.
23. As the only material witness to prove the identity of accused is
injured Dharamveer who stated that he was going towards his
home at Village Surheda from Najafgarh on his bike and when at
about 08:00 pm he reached in front of field of Ram Kumar, one
E-rickshaw which was travelling in a high speed in zigzag
manner, hit his motorcycle. He stated that the driver of E-
rickshaw was on wrong side in his way when the accident
occurred. PW1 categorically stated that it was the duty of E-
rickshaw to drive on the left side of the road and after collusion
with his motorcycle, the driver of e-rickshaw ran away from the
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 13 of 26 2025.05.20
17:13:00 +0530
place of occurrence. PW1 correctly identified the accused as
driver of offending e-rickshaw.
24. Before, proceeding, at this stage, it is relevant to mention the
matter as decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Balu
Sudamkhalde and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra Crl.
Appeal No. 1910 of 2010 decided on 29.03.2023, laid down the
principles for the evaluation of the testimony of injured eye
witness, where it was observed as under: –
“26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be
appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the
Courts are required to be kept in mind.
The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of
the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material
contradictions in his deposition.
Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be
believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits
to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value
and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to
be discarded lightly.
The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account
of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.
If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in
the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction,
exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the
evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken
into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due
to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.
27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eye witnesses,
two principal considerations are whether in the circumstances of
the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of
occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for
them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondlyDigitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 14 of 26 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:13:05
+0530
whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in
their evidence. In respect of both these considerations,
circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or
established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their
presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will
have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to
their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused
is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has
to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a
definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent
with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and
the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into
account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.”
25. The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the
testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in
law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the
witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of the
crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual
assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party
for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the
injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong
grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major
contradictions and discrepancies therein.
26. Ld. defence counsel submits that there are major contradictions
and discrepancies in the investigation and thereby the testimony
of injured witness cannot be relied upon as accused has been
falsely implicated in the present case. It is the defence version
that IO never recorded the statement of the complainant on the
date of incident and the same was recorded one day after i.e.
02.05.2019 and that accused was never found at the spot and that
he had been falsely implicated in the present case.
27. Before proceeding to evaluate the testimony of injured witness, it
is relevant to see as to how the criminal law was set into motion.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Page 15 of 26
Date:
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:13:10
+0530
As per PW5 SI Omkar upon receiving DD no.36A dated
01.05.2019 time 08:13 pm Ex.A2 (colly), he reached at the spot
where he found motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-4SCQ-
9398 in an accidental condition from where he came to know that
injured was already shifted to RTRM Hospital in a private
vehicle. PW5 further stated that thereafter he left the spot and
reached at RTRM hospital from where he was shifted to Trauma
Centre, Safdarjung. PW5 further stated that he left the said
hospital and again reached at the spot where he met accused, who
was being apprehended by public persons. PW5 further stated
that thereafter he left the custody of accused with ASI Sudesh
and went to Safdarjung Hospital for recording statement of
complainant which was recorded by him Ex. PW1/A.
Interestingly, there is no application moved by IO PW5 either
before RTRM hospital or before Safdarjung hospital for
recording statement of injured. The said statement recorded on
02.05.2019 i.e. one day after the incident and PW5 has not placed
on record any document to show that he had ever gone to
Safdarjung hospital to record the statement of injured.
Furthermore, perusal of the statement of injured recorded by
PW5 Ex.PW1/A reveals that complainant stated that after the
collision, the driver of e-rickshaw had fled from the spot and that
he could identify the accused if brought before him.
28. Furthermore, when complainant had not stated anything about the
name of the accused in his complaint Ex. PW1/A, thereby it
became all the more important to have got the Test Identification
Parade (TIP) conducted of the accused and other suspects
conducted. However, during the course of investigation, no TIP
of the accused person was got conducted for reasons best known
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 16 of 26 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:13:14
+0530
to the investigating officer. IO could have resorted to the process
of Test Identification Parade for ascertaining the identity of the
person driving the vehicle in question, but not to be. The purpose
of test identification is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness
of the evidence regarding identification of the accused in the
court. Although, absence of test identification parade may not be
ipso facto sufficient to discard the testimony of witness who has
identified accused in Court, as TIP is a part of investigation and it
is not substantive evidence. However, it is settled law now, that
convicting an accused solely on basis of their identification for
the first time in court, when the test identification process was
not resorted to by the investigating agency is not prudent.
29. Moving further as stated by IO PW5 that once he had returned
back from RTRM hospital back to the spot, accused was handed
over to him being apprehended by public persons. PW5 admitted
in his cross-examination that he had only recorded statement of
one public person namely Abhinandan @ Happy, who was
relative of injured Dharamveer. PW5 further admitted that the
said Abhinadan @ Happy was not present at the spot when he
reached at the spot initially and that he had also not recorded
statement of any other public person. Interestingly, perusal of the
case record reveals that said Abhinandan @ Happy is cited as
prosecution witness, however, he was never examined being
dropped upon submission of Ld. APP from being examined as
prosecution witness on 30.03.2022. Furthermore, injured witness
had not stated any registration number of said offending e-
rickshaw either in his testimony or in his complaint Ex.PW1/A.
Although PW1 admitted and identified the offending e-rickshaw
through photographs Ex.PW1/P1 (colly). However, perusal of the
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 17 of 26 2025.05.20
17:13:19
+0530
said photographs reveals that no registration number is affixed
with said offending e-rickshaw. Although it is the version of
PW5 IO that he had arrested the accused from the spot only,
however, arrest memo of accused mentions the date of arrest as
02.05.2019 at 05:20 am despite the fact that incident occurred on
01.05.2019. No plausible reason/ explanation is coming from
PW5 as to why the accused was formally arrested on 02.05.2019
when the accused was handed over to him on the spot only on the
date of incident. There is nothing on record in the form of eye-
witness count/ notice u/S 133 MV Act to connect the offending
vehicle with accused person.
30. In addition to the above, the investigation in the present matter
appears to have been conducted in a callous and lackadaisical
manner. First and foremost, the site plan seems to have been
prepared by the IO in a very perfunctory manner, without
disclosing the actual state of affairs as seen by him at the
accidental spot. At this stage, the site plan Ex.PW1/B becomes
relevant to be perused as prepared by PW5 SI Omkar. Before
proceedings to deal with the aspect of site plan it is relevant to
highlight the case of Abdul Subhan Vs. State NCT Delhi 133
(2006) DLT 562 had laid down guidelines with regard to the
investigation to be conducted in the offence of accident:
13.1. In most cases I find that the site plans are not produced.
Even the site plan that is produced is of a very unsatisfactory
nature. It is, therefore, imperative that the investigating officer
should be provided with maps of the roads drawn to scale so
that accurate site plans can be produced in evidence for the
appreciation of courts. The exact point of impact as well as
tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicles come to
rest after the collision should be demarcated clearly. The
observations with regard to the length of the tyre skid marks of
the vehicles involved in the impact go a long way in indicating
the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling. This would
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 18 of 26 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:13:25
+0530
enable the courts to examine the evidence in a much more
objective manner and the courts would not be faced with
vague and subjective expressions such as high speed”.
13.2. The mechanical inspection reports that are prepared are
also, I find, in a majority of cases, of a very superficial and
cursory nature. The inspection ought to be carried out by
qualified personnel who are able to indicate in their reports the
exact physical conditions of the vehicles. They should be able
to point out with exactitude the damage suffered by the
vehicles as a result of the impact. The mechanical inspection
report should indicate all the telltale signs of the collision such
as the paint of one vehicle rubbing off on the other. It should
also indicate as to whether the vehicles were mechanically
sound or not prior to the impact so as to enable the court to
arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision took place
due to human rashness or negligence or mechanical failure
beyond human control.
13.3. As a rule, photographs ought to be taken not only of the
vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and
surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily
discerned by courts.
13.4. The prevalent weather conditions must be noted by the
investigating officer. This would go to establish as to whether
the road was slippery due to rain; whether there was poor
visibility due to fog or mist etc.13.5. Furthermore, the path of movement of the vehicles must
be sought to be established in the course of investigation and
not be left open to ambiguity and doubt as in the present case.
13.6. The drivers of the vehicle involved must also be
subjected to tests to reveal whether they had consumed any
intoxicants.
13.7. Proper investigation of such accidents would go a long
way in aiding the criminal justice system in convicting those
who are guilty and acquitting those who are innocent. A
shoddy investigation will only point in one direction and that
is in the acquittal of all whether they are guilty or whether they
are innocent. Because, no criminal court would (and ought not
to) convict any person merely on the basis of conjectures,
assumptions, probabilities. All elements of subjectivity need to
be eliminated and the investigation should be such that, when a
charge sheet is filed, the court is presented with a case which
when taken objectively would lead to the inescapable
conclusion that a conviction is maintainable.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 19 of 26 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:13:30
+0530
19. The site plan so placed on record is neither scaled site plan
nor is proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, no photographs
of the surrounding sites has been taken and placed on record
by IO. As such the prosecution has failed to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that alleged accident took place due to rash
or negligent driving of accused.”
31. Therefore, it is clear that the site plan is not prepared as per the
guidelines and it is nowhere highlighting the complete state of
affairs of the incident in question. The photograph as placed on
record are not of the spot but rather of superdari proceedings.
Two photographs of the motorcycle in PW1/P1 (colly) are of a
motorcycle parked on the side of the road, however, the same
does not clearly highlights whether it the motorcycle of PW1 or
not. The way the said photographs are taken does not clearly
described the spot of incident. Further, point A on the site plan is
mentioned as a point at a distance of 24 steps from the electricity
pole whereas alphabet ‘e’ is stated as the location of e-rickshaw.
Neither the site plan clearly mentions the spot where the collision
happened nor it depicts the place where victim’s motorcycle was
found. As such it is the version of injured PW1 that offending e-
rickshaw fled from the spot after the incident. Although IO PW5
stated that accused was found at the spot only being apprehended
by public persons. There is no point mentioned on the site plan as
to where e-rickshaw was found. Further, the spot of incident is
very near to one MCD Primary School which may have been
equipped with CCTV Cameras but no efforts were taken by the
IO to procure the said footage which would have helped in
ascertain as to who was present at the spot.
32. It is evident upon perusing the prosecution evidence that the
offending e-rickshaw was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/B
which does not mention any registration number of chasis
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 20 of 26 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:13:34
+0530
number of the said e-rickshaw. IO has not stated anything as to
how and based on what documents accused was connected with
seized e-rickshaw. Neither the invoice paper of the said
unregistered e-rickshaw was procured by the IO nor any
documents were procured to link the said e-rickshaw with the
accused person. There is nothing on record except the testimony
of PW1 stating the accused to be the person who was driving the
offending vehicle. Even the testimony of PW1 is not inspiring
confidence as there is unexplained delay in recording the
statement of the injured and thereby there is considerable doubt
on the fact whether the accused was driving the offending vehicle
or not as it is the version of injured himself that the offending
vehicle had fled away after the collision.
33. At this stage, it is relevant to peruse the mechanical inspection
report of both the vehicles i.e. offending e-rickshaw and
motorcycle of victim Ex.A4 and Ex.A3 respectively to check the
nature of damages sustained by both the offending vehicle and
motorcycle to check whether the same corroborates the version
as stated by injured PW1. The mechanical inspection reports of
both the vehicles which were prepared by Mechanical Inspector
Dharmander Ex.A4 and Ex.A3 which was done on 04.05.2019
i.e. three days after the incident. Mechanical inspection report
Ex.A4 reveals that the offending e-rickshaw had sustained the
following damages:
(i) Fresh right side rear tyre rim bent.
(ii) Fresh right side rear tyre, upper body pannel dent with bent.
(iii) Old rear both tail lights damaged.
(iv) Some old scratches on left side body pannel.
(v) Black colour scratches on right side driver seat corner.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 21 of 26 AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.20
17:13:40 +0530
34. Similarly, Mechanical Inspector prepared the mechanical
inspection report of motorcycle of injured PW1 with the
following damages:
(i) Fresh front both Shokers bent
(ii) Fresh right side leg guard bent
(iii) Fresh right brake footrest bent
(iv) Fresh scratch on left side head light visor
(v) Fresh scratch on left side head light
(vi) Fresh scratch on left side leg guard
(vii) Fresh front wheel mud guard damaged
(viii) Fresh front right indicator damage
(ix) Fresh handle Chimta bent
(x) Fresh right side RVM Damage
(xi) Fresh right side fuel tank dent
(xii) Fresh right side rear dicky damaged
(xiii) Fresh rear brake assembly found totaly damaged and not found in
vehicle.
35. Therefore, it is clear upon examining the damages sustained by
the both the vehicles involved in the collision that the motorcycle
of the victim bore the brunt of the impact, with extensive
damage. The offending e-rickshaw had only one major point
mentioned in the mechanical inspection Ex.A4 as right-side rear
tyre bent with little scratches on the body. Whereas the victim
motorcycle sustained major damages whereby both front
shockers being bent alongwith right side leg guard bent with
handle and front wheel having major damages. The damages on
the motorcycle clearly shows that it had impact on its front side
whereas damages on the e-rickshaw only shows some damages
on the right rear wheel which is also not major. The kind of
damages sustained by injured motorcycle is not corresponding
with the damage on the offending e-rickshaw. Even evident from
the photographs of e-rickshaw which shows it to be a new
vehicle without any registration number. The said non-
corresponding damages on both the vehicles also points to the
fact that both the vehicles do not deem to be involved in the
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 22 of 26 ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.20
17:13:45
+0530
present incident. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs there
is no material or record even connecting the accused with e-
rickshaw and seen from the prospective that two vehicles
involved in the incident are also not matching with the damages
sustained by both, completely makes the version of PW1
unconvincing.
36. Therefore, upon pursuing the testimony of PW4 alongwith the
investigation conducted by IO PW5, there is no material evidence
on record to connect the offending vehicle in the present case and
consequently in the absence of any further material or witnesses
there is nothing which connects the accused with offending e-
rickshaw.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT BEING THE RESULT OF RASH
AND NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED.
37. Although the identity of the accused being the driver of the
offending vehicle is not established remotely or conclusively to
be the person who had caused the incident in question. Further, it
cannot be gainsaid that despite identity of the driver of offending
vehicle not proved, rashness and negligence to be proved by the
prosecution must be of nature culpable or gross and not
something merely based upon an error of judgment. In the
present case, the identity of the driver of the offending vehicle is
not established. Prosecution has the bounden duty to discharge
the initial onus before it can shift on to the other party.
38. Furthermore, the investigation in the present matter appears to
have been conducted in a callous and lackadaisical manner. Here
it is relevant to highlight the judgment as passed by the Hon’ble
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 23 of 26 ABHINAV AHLAWAT
Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:13:51
+0530
Supreme Court in the year 2014 State of Gujarat vs kishan bhai
etc Criminal appeal no. 1485 of 2008, ” every acquittal should be
understood as a failure of the justice delivery system, in serving
the cause of justice. Likewise, every acquittal should ordinarily
lead to the inference, that an innocent person was wrongfully
prosecuted. It is therefore, essential that every State should put in
place a procedural mechanism, which would ensure that the
cause of justice is served, which would simultaneously ensure
the safeguard of interest of those who are innocent. On the
culmination of a criminal case in acquittal, the concerned
investigating/prosecuting official(s) responsible for such
acquittal must necessarily be identified. A finding needs to be
recorded in each case, whether the lapse was innocent or
blameworthy. Each erring officer must suffer the consequences
of his lapse, by appropriate departmental action, whenever called
for. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the matter, the
concerned official may be withdrawn from investigative
responsibilities, permanently or temporarily, depending purely
on his culpability. We also feel compelled to require the adoption
of some indispensable measures, which may reduce the malady
suffered by parties on both sides of criminal litigation.
39. In the present case, as discussed above the investigation is done in
a highly unprofessional manner with no efforts made to use the
scientific methods for collection of evidences. IO has not
employed scientific method for procuring the evidence as neither
the CDR location of the accused was procured nor any efforts
were undertaken to lift chance prints from the vehicle in
question. There is nothing on record to connect the offending
vehicle with the accused person. No CDR of accused was
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 24 of 26 Date:
AHLAWAT 2025.05.20
17:13:55
+0530
procured to ascertain his location at the time of incident which
could have shed light regarding his presence. Further, the
ownership details of the offending e-rickshaw was not obtained
which could have shed light on the fact as to whether the
offending e-rickshaw used to ply at the spot of incident or not.
Although the intention of not doing such basic investigation
cannot be termed deliberate at this stage but the same cannot be
ignored being callous or due to being unprofessional. This not
only denies justice to the victim but also undermines public trust
in the legal system. Prosecution in such investigation is bound to
fail only and the whole exercise of trial becomes futile.
40. The Second set of allegations against the accused revolves around
commission of offence under Sections 3/181, 39/192 and
146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act which prescribes punishment for
driving the vehicle without possessing valid driving licence and
plying the uninsured vehicle.
41. Here, it needs to mentioned that when the prosecution has failed
to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was
present at the spot of the incident and that the offending vehicle
was involved in the incident, any further inquiry into whether the
accused possessed a valid driving license of whether the
offending vehicle was insured or not becomes redundant and
infructuous. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence
linking the accused and the offending vehicle to the incident
involving the complainant, the question of compliance with
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act does not arise for
consideration. Accordingly, benefit of doubt is accorded to the
accused and he stands acquitted for the offence punishable
Sections 3/181, 39/192 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles Act.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 25 of 26 ABHINAV
AHLAWAT
Date:
2025.05.20
17:14:01
+0530
CONCLUSION
42. From the above discussion, and the surrounding circumstances in
which the accident took place, as adduced on record, the identity
of the accused being the driver of the offending vehicle who was
driving the vehicle rashly which caused the death of the deceased
is not established conclusively. Prosecution which was under the
bounden duty to discharge the initial onus failed to establish the
case against the accused. Several reasonable doubts have
emerged in the narrative put forth by prosecution as analyzed
hereinabove. The basic ingredient of Section 279/338 IPC has not
been proved and the inescapable conclusion is that the accused is
entitled to benefit of doubt.
43. Accordingly, this Court hereby accords the benefit of doubt to the
accused for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC and holds the accused
not guilty of commission of the said offences. Accused Jai Shri
Ram s/0 Ramfere is thus, acquitted of the offence u/s 279/338
IPC and sections 3/181, 39/192 and 146/196 of Motor Vehicles
Act.
Announced in the open court
on 20.05.2025 in the presence Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
of the accused. ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.20
17:14:06 +0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/20.05.2025
Note:- This judgment contains 26 pages and each page has been
signed by me.
Digitally signed
by ABHINAV
ABHINAV AHLAWAT
AHLAWAT Date:
2025.05.20
17:14:13 +0530
(Abhinav Ahlawat)
Judicial Magistrate First Class-09,
Dwarka, Delhi/20.05.2025
FIR No.66/2019, PS Jafarpur Kalan State vs. Jaishiram Page 26 of 26
[ad_1]
Source link