Delhi District Court
State vs Parshottom Lal on 25 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEHA KHERIA, JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
FIRST CLASS-02, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
DLNT02-001230-2011
Cr. Case 5286208/2016
State Vs. Parshotam Lal
FIR No. 241/2010
PS: SP Badli
U/S : 279/304A IPC and 146/196 MV ACt
JUDGMENT
ID number of the case : DLNT02-001230-2011
Date of commission of offence : 13.08.2010
Date of filing of the chargesheet : 31.01.2011
Name of the complainant : SI Harnam Singh
Name of accused and address : Parshotam Lal s/o Sh. Karam Chand, R/o
vill. Gohon Maneshav, Teh-Akhnor,
Distt. Jammu (J&K).
Offence complained of : U/s 279/304A IPC & 146/196 MV Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquittal
Date of judgment : 25.01.2025.
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 1/19
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.08.2010 DD No. 17B
was received and telephonically SI Harnam Singh was directed to conduct the
investigation. After receiving the DD No. 17B, SI Harnam reached at the spot
along with Ct. Raman. There, Ct. Rajesh was already present. At the crime spot,
a dead person due to accident was found. No eyewitness was present at the spot
and the dead body was sent to BJRM Hospital Mortuary with Ct. Rajesh. SI
Harnam prepared tehrir and handed over to Ct. Raman for registering FIR. Form
54 MACP was prepared. Father of deceased Raj Kumar and Amar Gupta went
to BJRM Hospital to identify the deceased and disclosed the name of deceased
as Lalit Gupta, aged 22 years. After doing paper work, dead body was handed
over to the family members of the deceased. On 19.09.2010, one Pradeep
Kumar disclosed about the identity of the vehicle i.e. Bus No. JK 02Y -0324
behind which ‘SEMI Deluxe’ was written. Thereafter, 91 CrPC notice was
served to Manager Passenger services. Notice u/s 133 MV Act was also given
and Bus number was also confirmed. It was found that driver’s name was
Parshotam Lal and he on 29.10.2010 came to PS. At the identification of
Pradeep Gupta, accused was arrested, arrest memo, personal search memo were
prepared. Other documents were completed, bus was seized Mechanical
inspection of the offending vehicle was conducted.
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 2/19
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under section
U/s 279/304A IPC & 146/196 MV Act by the IO and accused Parshotam Lal
was summoned Vide order dated 23.07.2011 notice was framed u/s 279/304A
IPC and Section 146/196 MV Act against the accused.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 8 witnesses. In brief the
prosecution witnesses deposed as follows:
PW-1 Raj Kumar Gupta deposed that his son Lalit used to sell
water bottles. On 13.8.2010, his son Lalit met with an accident. That
when Lalit did not return, he along with his nephew searched for him and
finally went to police station. He came to know that his son had met with
an accident and he identified his dead body in BJRM Hospital vide
identification memo Ex.PWI/A which bears his signatures at point A. The
body was handed over to him after post- mortem by the IO. He was not
cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused despite opportunity was
given.
PW2 Amar Gupta deposed that on 13.8.2010, his cousin (brother) Lalit
met with an accident. That when he did not return. He along with his
uncle Raj Kumar Gupta searched for him and finally went to police
station. PW2 came to know that his cousin brother had met with an
accident and he identified his dead body in BJRM Hospital. The body
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 3/19
was handed over to his uncle after post- mortem. He was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused despite opportunity was given.
PW3 Pradeep Kumar Gupta deposed that on 13.8.2010, he was going to
meet his friend at Samaypur on his motorcycle. At about 2.00 a.m., he
was passing through G. T. K. Road, one bus no. JK-02-Y-0324 was going
ahead of him. After crossing the red light at S. G. T Nagar, PW3 saw that
the driver of the said vehicle/bus, who was driving the bus at the speed of
90 to 100 kmph was overtaking the vehicle on road from left side. All of
a sudden, the driver of the above said bus hit against one person who was
trying to cross the road. The pedestrian had just begun to cross the road
when he was hit by the above said bus. As a result of this, the pedestrian
fell along the side of the road. PW3 also struck his motor cycle along side
the road. The driver of the offending vehicle also stopped his bus a little
ahead and came down to see the injured. When the driver of the bus saw
that the pedestrian was badly injured and had received head injuries. He
fled from the spot with his bus. The accident took place at main G. T. K.
Road before CNG Pump. He tried to call the police but could not as the
battery of his mobile was low and for that reason it was switched off. He
left the spot because of some urgent work as he had no time. He gave his
statement to the IO later on 19.9.2010 while he was passing from the spot
and saw that IO was interrogating public persons at S. G. T. Nagar red
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 4/19
light. On 29.9.2010, he went to police station as he was called by the IO.
PW3 identified the driver of offending vehicle in the police station and
the accused was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A
which bears his signatures at point A and personal search of accused was
conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/B which bears his
signatures at point A. The bus was seized in his presence vide seizure
memo Ex.PW3/C which bears his signatures at point A. The driving
licence of the accused was also seized in his presence vide seizure memo
Ex.PW3/D which bears his signatures at point A. The photographs of the
offending vehicle are placed in file. Photographs of the bus are identified
by the witness and are Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. PW3 correctly identified
the driver of the offending vehicle. The photographs of the deceased were
also placed in file and are Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. Three photographs of the
offending vehicle bearing no. JK 02Y- 0324, which were already on
record, were shown to the witness to which witness replied that the bus
visible in the photographs is the same, which caused the accident. The
photographs are already Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3. PW3 was cross-examined by
Ld. counsel for accused and during cross examined he resiled from his
earlier statement.
PW4 Ct. Raman Kumar deposed that on 13.08.2010, he was posted at PS
S.P. Badli as constable. On that day, after receiving DD no. 17B by the
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 5/19
IO, he alongwith the IO reached at the spot i.e. near CNG Pump, GTK
Road, Transport Nagar, S.P. Badli whereon Ct. Rajesh met them at the
spot and one dead body was lying at the spot. IO inquired about the dead
body to public person. Nobody gave the account of the same. IO got the
photograph of the spot as well as the dead body clicked by the
photographer. The dead body was entrusted to Ct. Rajesh by the IO for
mortuary BJRM hospital. IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to
him for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, PW4 came back at
the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to the IO. IO
prepared site plan. Thereafter, PW4 alongwith the IO went to the
Mukarba Chowk where two persons namely Raj Kumar and Amar met
them who told them that they were also searching his son who was
missing from his house. They took them to the mortuary Babu Jagjivan
Ram Hospital who identified the dead body of the deceased as his son. IO
recorded the statement of both person at BJRM hospital and handed over
the dead body to them after postmortem of the deceased Lalit Kumar. IO
recorded his statement. PW4 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for
accused.
PW5 S.N. Bharadwaj deposed that he had been deputed by HOD
Forensic Department, BJRM Hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Chetan
Kumar. PW5 has seen the Postmortem Report No. 965/10 dated
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 6/19
13.08.2010 of the deceased Lalit Gupta as Ex.PW5/A which bears the
signatures of Dr. Chetan Kumar at point A. As per the postmortem report
by Dr. Chetan Kumar, the cause of death is due to combined effect of
cerebral damage and shock and haemorrhage due to liver injury. All the
injuries are antemortem in nature caused by blunt forced impact possible
in a road side accident. PW5 identify the handwriting & signatures of Dr.
Chetan Kumar as PW5 has seen him writing and signing in his official
capacity. Dr. Chetan Kumar has left the services of the hospital authority
and his whereabouts are not available in the office record. PW5 was not
cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused despite opportunity was
given.
PW 6 HC Bhupender Kumar deposed that on 11.11.2010, he was posted
at PS SP Badli as constable. On direction of IO, he went to Jammu to
verify the documents of bus bearing registration no. JK 02Y 0324. The
documents were verified and were found to be genuine. On 14.11.2010,
he returned to Delhi. IO recorded his statement in this regard. PW6 was
not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite opportunity was
given.
PW7 ASI Sushil deposed that on 13.08.2010, he was posted as HC at PS
SP Badli. His duty hours were from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m. At about
06:40 a.m., he received a rukka through Ct. Raman sent by SI Harnam
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 7/19
Singh. He made endorsement upon that rukka which is Ex. PW7/A. On
the basis of the rukka, he got registered the FIR Ex. PW7/B (OSR). After
registration of FIR, the copy of FIR and original Tehrir was handed over
to Ct. Raman. PW7 was not cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused
despite opportunity was given.
PW8 Inspector Haram Singh deposed that in the intervening night of
12/13.08.2010, he was posted at PS SP Badli as SI and was on emergency
duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 a.m. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 17B
regarding accident, accordingly, he alongwith Ct. Raman Kumar went to
the spot i.e. near CNG Pump, GTK Road, Delhi and met Ct. Rajesh. One
dead body was also lying on the spot. He tried to find out the eye witness
at or near to the spot but of no avail. He got the photographs of the spot as
well as the dead body clicked by the photographer. The dead body was
entrusted to Ct. Rajesh for mortuary BJRM Hosptial. PW8 prepared the
rukka i.e. Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point A and handed over
the same to Ct. Raman for registration of FIR. He went to PS, got the FIR
registered and returned to the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original
rukka and handed over the same to him. PW8 also prepared the site plan,
which is Ex. PW8/B, bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he
alongwith Ct. Raman Kumar tried to find out the offending vehicle as
well as identity of the dead body but of no avail. In the meantime, they
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 8/19
also met Raj Kumar and Amar who was searching the missing Lalit
Kumar. PW8 took them to BJRM Mortuary, where they identified the
dead body vide identification memo already Ex. PW 1/A, bearing his
signature at point B. After postmortem, dead body of deceased was
handed over to his father. During investigation, while he was searching
the offender and offending vehicle, PW8 reached at the spot on
19.09.2010, when PW8 was enquiring from the passersby, a person
namely Pradeep Kumar Gupta informed him that he is the eye witness in
the instant case on which, PW8 recorded his statement, in which he
provided the details of the offending vehicle and also stated that he can
identify the driver, if shown to him. Further, PW8 made enquiries from
the JKSRTC regarding the arrival, departure and details of the staff
posted on the fateful day on the bus number JK02Y0324. In this regard,
PW8 also served notice u/s 91 of CrP.C and 133 of M.V. Act to the
Incharge of JKSRTC depot Delhi and Jammu respectively. Same are Ex.
PW8/C and Ex. PW8/D, both bearing his signature at point A. PW8 also
received the reply from the Incharge depot Ex. PW8/X. Thereafter,
accused Purshottam appeared in the PS with offending vehicle. Witness
Pradeep Kumar was also present in the PS. PW8 seized the photocopy of
the fitness certificate, R/C, duty slip of the bus, D.L of accused and
offending vehicle vide memo Ex. PW8/E (colly) bearing his signature at
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 9/19
point A. PW8 arrested and personally searched the accused at the instance
of Pradeep Kumar vide memos Ex. PW8/F and Ex. PW8/G, both bearing
his signature at point A. On 29.10.2010, he got the mechanical inspection
done of the vehicle vide his request letter Ex. PW8/H, bearing his
signature at point A. PW8 also verified the documents from the
concerned authority. Accused was released on police bail since the
offence is bailable in nature. PW8 recorded the statement of witnesses.
The vehicle was released on supardari. Accused was correctly identified
by the witness. After completion of all the codal formalities, he filed the
charge sheet before the court. Eight photographs of the offending vehicle,
spot and deceased were shown to the witness to which witness replied
that aforesaid photographs were captured at his instance and bus shown in
the photographs is involved in the present case and person shown in the
photograph is deceased person Lalit Kumar of the present case. The bus
was seized by him in the present case. Photographs are Ex. P-1 (colly).
PW8 was cross-examined by Ld. counsel for accused.
4. Accordingly, PE was closed on 10.05.2024.
Statement under section 313 Cr.PC
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded vide order dated 29.10.2024. All
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 10/19
incriminating material brought on record were put to the accused to which he
denied the allegations made against him and claimed himself to be innocent. He
further pleaded that he has not committed the said accident. Accused opt not to
lead defence evidence. Hence, DE was closed.
6. Final arguments were heard. Record perused.
7. Before, discussing the testimonies of PWs, it would be prudent to discuss the
legal position involved in the present case.
LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
8. Section 279 of the IPC provides for the offence of rash driving or riding
on a public way. It reads as under:
“Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any
public way 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.”
9. On bare reading of the above provisions, it becomes clear that there are
primarily three essential ingredients which constitute offence of rash driving on
a public way.
a. Person must be driving or riding on a public way;
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 11/19
b. He must be driving in a rash or negligent manner;
c. Likely to endanger human life or cause hurt or injury to any person;
10. Section 304A IPC provides for the offence of causing death by
negligence. Death must have been caused by rash or negligent act which must
not amount to culpable homicide. It reads as under:
“Whoever causes the death of any person by
doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to
culpable homicide, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to two years, or with dine, or
with both.”
11. The doing of a rash or negligent act, which causes, death is the essence of
section 304A. There is a slight distinction between a rash act and a negligent
act. ‘Rashness’ conveys the idea of recklessness or doing an act without due
consideration and ‘negligence’ connotes want of proper care. A rash act,
therefore, implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference to
its consequences. The doer, being conscious of the mischievous or illegal
consequences, does the act knowing that his act may bring some undesirable or
illegal results but without hoping or intending them to occur. A negligent act, on
the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 12/19
precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or
illegal consequences.
12. A perusal of the above discussed provisions makes it very clear that an
act of rashness or negligence endangering the human life or personal safety is a
common ingredient in all these offences. Now a question arises as to what
would constitute a rash or negligent act. At this stage, reference may be taken
from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed
Aynuddin @ Miyan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has discussed in detail as to what constitute a rash or negligent act. It was
inter-alia held the following:
“A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is
opposed to 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
recklessness and with indifference as to the
consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure
to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care
and precaution guarding against injury 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.”
13. Further, in the case of Braham Dass vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2009)
3 SCC (Cri) 406, while discussing the legal position with respect to an offence
u/s 279/304A IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has interalia held the following:
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 13/19
“Obviously the foundation in accusations under
Section 279 IPC is not negligence. Similarly in
Section 304 A the stress is on causing death by
negligence or rashness. Therefore, for bringing in
application of either Section 279 or 304 A it must
be established that there was an element of
rashness or negligence. Even if the prosecution
version is accepted in toto, there was no evidence
led to show that any negligence was involved.”
14. Therefore, indifference to the consequences of one’s act or absence of
reasonable care and precaution is the most important ingredient constituting
rashness or negligence. It should be noted that intention of the person acting
rash or negligent act is immaterial. What is important is that he has not taken
due care or has done the said act with indifference to the consequences.
15. Further, it should be noted that there should be direct link between the act
or rashness or negligence and hurt/grievous hurt/death, as the case may be,
suffered by the victim. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Abdul
Subhan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 133 (2006) DLT 562 has discussed the
ingredients which need to be established by the prosecution for convicting an
accused u/s 279/304 A IPC. The Hon’ble Court has inter-alia held the following:
“As observed 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 regards the offence punishable
under section 304A IPC, it was observed that theFIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 14/19
point to be established is that the act of the
accused was responsible for the death and that
such act of the accused must have been rash and
negligent although it did not amount to culpable
homicide. As observed in Badri Prasad (supra), to
establish the offence either under section 279 or
section 304A, the commission of a rash or
negligent act has to be proved.”
16. The above-mentioned judgment sufficiently enlightens us that for
establishing accusations u/s 304A IPC, prosecution is not only required to
establish that the accused was rash or negligent while driving the vehicle, but it
is additionally incumbent on prosecution to establish that the causa causans of
death of deceased / or the proximate cause of death of deceased was the act of
accused.
17. With regard to Section 146 of MV Act, it states that :
(1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any
other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force, in
relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case
may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter:
Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or
hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public
Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 15/19
Explanation.–For the purposes of this sub-section, a person driving a motorvehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in relation to the use of the
vehicle no such policy in force as is required by this sub-section, shall not be
deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason
to believe that there is no such policy in force.
18. Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act states that
Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be
driven in contravention of the provisions of section 146 shall be punishable with
imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
19. After going through the evidence on record, court is of the considered
opinion that allegations against accused persons are not proved beyond
reasonable doubt. There is no cogent evidence to demonstrate that the accused
has committed the offences for which he faced the trial. The prosecution has
failed to prove the allegations on account of the following reasons:
Inconsistencies and Infirmities in the case of prosecution
It is pertinent to mention that the main witness of the prosecution who isalleged to be eye witness in the present case PW3 Pradeep Gupta, resiled
from his earlier statement and during cross examination he stated that he
did not see the alleged incident and that he received the call from
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 16/19
someone regarding the accident of his cousin. He stated further that IOhad called him after one month. That he was told to give statement as he
was tutored. That IO had shown him the vehicle and asked to identify and
he had signed some blank documents and he did not know the nature of
those papers.
Though testimony of hostile witness is not to be discarded completely
and is to be scrutinized closely. Hence, even if for the sake of the
arguments it is believed that PW3 saw the accident and he was very much
present at the crime spot, however, it is beyond comprehension that why
PW3 who is the cousin of the deceased would leave his cousin bleeding
at the crime spot due to some urgent work as stated by him in the
examination in chief as nothing could be more valuable than to save life
of the deceased/his cousin. Further, he has also stated in his examination-
in-chief that he tried to call police but he could not as phone got switched
off due to low battery. No justification is given that why he did not ask
anybody around to give him phone to call police. The said witness who
allegedly was present at the spot did not even care to call the ambulance
for the reason best know to him and left the spot due to urgency, this
contention does not inspire confidence of the Court. Hence, in view of the
inconsistency in the statement of PW3, same cannot be relied upon to
held accused guilty.
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 17/19
It is further pertinent to mention that while the alleged incident wascommitted on 13.08.2010 whereas the statement of eyewitness PW3 was
recorded on 19.09.2010, after more than a month. Again, even if for the
sake of argument it is believed that on the alleged date of incident due to
some urgency PW3 left the spot, it is beyond comprehension that why he
did not approach the police to inform them about the said incident on the
next day.
It is further significant to mention here that PW8 during his cross
examination stated that neither eye witness nor the bus was found present
at the spot. There is nothing on record which can prove presence of
accused at the crime spot and that accused was driving the bus in so rash
or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety of
other and that while driving the bus he hit the deceased and caused his
death not amounting to culpable homicide. It is further pertinent to
mention that prosecution has not exhibited any document that on the
alleged date of incident, the vehicle in question i.e bus was uninsured,
hence prosecution failed to prove ingredients of section 279/304A IPC
and 146/196 Motor Vehicle Act, under which accused was charged.
20. At this stage, court further deems it fit to state, that it is a settled principle
of criminal jurisprudence, that culpability cannot be established on surmises and
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 18/19
conjectures but it should rest on cogent, reliable and clinching evidence,
dispelling every doubt and bulwarking the fact that in all possibility, the offence
must have been committed by the accused.
21. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,
accused Parshotam Lal stands acquitted from the charges U/s.279/304A IPC
and 146/196 Motor Vehicle Act.
Digitally signed
NEHA by NEHA
KHERIA
Announced in the open court KHERIA Date: 2025.01.25
17:07:48 +0530
Dictated directly into the computer (Dr. Neha Kheria)
and announced in the open Court, JMFC-02/North/Rohini
On 25th January, 2025. Delhi/25.01.2025
This judgment consists of 19 pages and all bear my signature.
NEHA Digitally signed
by NEHA KHERIA
KHERIA 17:07:43 +0530
Date: 2025.01.25
(Dr. Neha Kheria)
JMFC-02/North/Rohini
Delhi/25.01.2025
FIR No. 241/2010 State Vs. Parshotam Lal Page No. 19/19
[ad_1]
Source link