Delhi District Court
State vs Shahid on 18 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. Karanbir Singh, JMFC-02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
STATE VS. Shahid
FIR NO. 317/2021
PS TIMARPUR
U/S 279/337/338/IPC
Date of institution of the case 24.12.2021.
Date of judgment reserved 21.12.2025.
Cr. Case No. 9/2022
CNR DLCT02-028062-2021
Date of commission of offence 26.09.2021.
Name of accused and address Shahid S/o Sh. Mohd. Rafiq R/o F-89,
Gali No. 9, Khajuri Khas, Delhi,
permanent R/o Hulka Thandi Sadak,
Baddi Naga, Kasanganj, Kashi Ram
Nagar, UP.
Offence complained of 279/337/338 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of Judgment 18.01.2025.
Final order Convicted.
Digitally
signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
17:30:28
+0530
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 1 / 24
JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:
1. The prosecution story in nutshell is that on 26.09.2021, accused was
driving TSR bearing no. DL1RQ2781 in a rash and negligent manner and he
caused grievous injury to Virender Kumar and simple injury to complainant
Anup Kumar.
COURT PROCEEDINGS:
2. Investigation was completed and police report u/s 173 Cr.P.C was
filed for the commission of offences punishable under sections 279/337/338
IPC. Cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. Provisions of Section
207 Cr.P.C. were complied with after appearance of the accused.
NOTICE U/S 251 CR.P.C. :
3. After hearing arguments on point of service of notice, notice for the
offence under Section 279/337/338 IPC was framed against the accused to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION:
4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 10
witnesses.
5. PW-1 Rt. ASI/Tech Gurdeep Singh has deposed that he is qualified
KARANBIR
SINGH
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 2 / 24
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:30:35 +0530
grade-I mechanic and he has done specialized courses/ training from ITR
various vehicle manufacturing companies. He has mechanically inspected more
than 45 thousand more vehicles till date. On 28.09.2021 at a request of IO/ASI
Bhushan, PS Timar Pur for mechanically inspecting one TSR bearing
registration no. D1RQ2781 and motorcycle bearing registration no.
DL7SCH9526 involved in a roadside accident. He reached at PS Timar Pur and
mechanically inspected aforesaid vehicles. His deatiled mechanical inspection
reports in this regard are Ex.PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B, both bearing his signature
at point A.
6. PW-2 Smt. Parveen W/o Sh. Firoz Khan has deposed that on
26.06.21 she purchased one TSR bearing no. DL1RQ2781 from the registered
owner Shokeen vide vehicle agreement dt. 26.06.21 Mark A but she could not
get the same transferred in her name. She used to give the said TSR on rent. On
26.09.2021, the said TSR was taken by her son-in-law namely accused Shahid
to Wazirabad Majar. Later on, she got to know that he caused an accident from
the same TSR. IO recorded her statement. She received a noticce u/s 133 MV
Act from police officials of PS Timar Pur to the effect as to who was driving the
aforesaid TSR on 26.09.2021. The said notice was replied and the contents were
written by her brother-in-law in her presence. The reply is now is Ex. PW2/A
bearing my signatures at point A.
7. PW-3 Sh. Shokeen has deposed that on 26.06.2021, he sold his TSR
bearing no. DL1RQ2781 to Smt. Parveen vide vehicle agreement dt. 26.06.2021
bearing his signatures at point A but she could not get the same transferred in
her name. He received a notice from police officials of PS Timar Pur to the
Digitally
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 3 / 24 signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
17:30:42
+0530
effect as to who was driving the aforesaid TSR. The said notice was replied in
which he mentioned that he already sold the aforesaid TSR to Smt. Praveen vide
agreement Mark A. The aforesaid reply is now Ex. PW3/A bearing my
signatures at point A. He got released the aforesaid TSR on superdari from the
court and superdarinama in this regard is Ex. PW3/B bearing his signatures at
point A.
8. PW-4 HC Adesh MHCM has deposed that he has brought
summoned record i.e. register no. 19 for the year 2021 in which ASI Bhushan
deposited the case property i.e. one TSR bearing no. DL1RQ2781 in the present
FIR on 26..09.2021 vide entry no. 2538. He also brought the photocopy of the
said entry and the same taken on record and is Ex. PW4/A (OSR). On the same
day, ASI Bhushan also deposited the case property i.e. one motorcycle bearing
no. DL7SCH9526 in the present FIR vide entry on 2538A. He also brought the
photocopy of the said entry and the same is taken on record and is Ex. PW4/B
(OSR).
9. PW-5 has deposed that day, he was on emergency duty from 08:00
a.m. to 08:00 p.m. At around 02:50 p.m. ASI Bhushan received a PCR call
regarding accident. At about 02:20 p.m., I alongwith ASI Bhushan went to the
spot i.e., signature bridge where we saw two vehicles standing there one of
which was a TSR bearing registration no. DL1RQ2781 and one black pulsar
motorcycle bearing registration no. DL7SCH9526. There was no injured at the
spot as they were already cameras availablbe at the spot but none were found. IO
made inquiry with the public disclosing their name or address but they only
informed us that injured was taken to the taruma center. ASI Bhushan left me
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 4 / 24 Digitally
signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
17:30:47
+0530
the spot to preserve the same and went to the trauma centre. At about 05:30
p.m., ASI Bhushan returned to the spot and prepared tehrir and handed over the
same to me for getting the FIR registered. At about 06:05 p.m., he left the spot
for the PS and reached there at about 06:15 p.m. He handed over the tehrir to
the DO and after registration, he handed over the computerized copy of FIR and
original tehrir to me at about 06:33 p.m. He returned to the spot within 15-20
minutes and handed over the same to the IO. Thereafter, IO prepared the site
plan in his presence. IO also seized TSR bearing registration no. DL1RQ2781
and one black pulsar motorcycle bearing registration no. DL7SCH9526.
Thereafter, IO recorded my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and read over the same to
him. The photographs are Ex. P1 (colly).
10. PW-6 SI Purushottam has deposed that on 26.09.2021 he was
posted as ASI at PS Timar Pur. On that day, he was on picket duty from 08:00 a.m.
to 08:00 p.m. at Signature Bridge. At about 01:40 p.m. near Signature Bridge Rasna
No. 8 & 9 at a distance of 200-300 meters from the picket, at the road from the side
of Khajuri towards Timar Pur, few people gathered DL7SCH9526 make Hero
Passion, Black colour and a TSR bearing no. DL1RC2787 were found in accidental
condition at the corner of bridge road. Injured persons were already shifted by the
public persons to Trauma Centre in private vehicle. He informed about the incident to
the Duty Officer, PS Timar Pur. The said information was recorded vide GD No. 29A.
Driver of the TSR was not present at the spot at that time. After some time, ASI
Bhushan and Ct. Aakash came at the spot.
11. PW-7 Sh. Virender Kumar has deposed that on 26.09.2021, he
alongwith his cousin Anoop Kumar reached the Signature Bridge via Khajuri
Khas on his own motorcycle bearing no. DL7CH-9526. When at about 01:40
Digitally
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 5 / 24 signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
17:30:55
+0530
p.m., we stopped at the Signature Bridge and parked the motorcycle on the side
and they were looking at the Signature Bridge, then a TSR bearing no.
DL1RQ2781 came from the side of Khajuri at a high speed and in rash and
negligent manner. The aforesaid TSR hit my cousin Anoop Kumar and then hit
him and his motorcycle. Due to accident, my cousin and he got injured and our
motorcycle fell down and get damaged. The driver of the aforesaid TSR fled
away from the spot on foot and left his TSR there. Thereafter, he alongwith his
cousin went to the trauma centre in another TSR and got treatment there.
Thereafter, police officials came at the PS and recorded his statement u/s 161
Cr.P.C. The said photographs are already Ex. P1 (colly) (1-3).
12. PW-8 HC Manoj Kumar has deposed that on 15.10.21, he was
posted as HC at PS Timar Pur. On that day, he joined the investigation in the present
case alongwith IO ASI Bhushan. On that day, the owner namely Smt. Parveen of the
offending vehicle bearing registration no. DL1RQ2781 produced the driver of the
said vehicle and gave the reply on the notice u/s 133 MV Act that at the time of
accident, her son-in-law was driving the aforesaid vehicle. After inquiry, IO arrested
the accused at the instance of the eye-witness Anoop Kumar vide arrest memo Ex.
PW8/A bearing his signature at point A. IO also conducted personal search of the
accused vide memo which is Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at point A. IO also
recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex. PW8/C bearing his
signaure at point A. Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of Anoop Kumar u/s 161
memo which is Ex. PW8/D bearing his signature at point A.
13. PW-9 Anoop Kumar has deposed that on 26.09.2021, he alongwith
his cousin Virender Kumar reached the Signature Bridge via Khajuri Khas on
his own motorcycle bearing no. DL7CH-9526. When at about 01:40 p.m., we
KARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 6 / 24 SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:31:01 +0530
stopped at the Signature Bridge and parked the motorcycle on the side and they
were looking at the Signature Bridge, then a TSR bearing no. DL1RQ2781 came
from the side of Khajuri at a high speed and in rash and negligent manner. The
aforesaid TSR hit my cousin Anoop Kumar and then hit him and his motorcycle.
Due to accident, my cousin and he got injured and our motorcycle fell down and
got damaged. The driver of the aforesaid TSR fled away from the spot on foot
and left his TSR there. Thereafter, he alongwith his cousin went to the trauma
centre in another TSR and got treatment there. Thereafter, ASI Bhushan came at
the trauma centre and recorded his statement Bhushan returned to the spot
where he prepared site plan at his instance which is Ex. PW9/B bearing his
signature at point A.
14. PW-10 ASI Bhushan has deposed that on 26.09.2021, he received
information about the present case at around 02:05 p.m. He received at PCR call
regarding accident vide DD No. 29-A. At about 02:20 p.m., I alongwith Ct.
Akash went to the spot i.e. Signature Bridge where they saw two vehicles
standing there in accidental condition, one of which was a TSR bearing
registration no. DL1RQ2781 and one Black Pulsar motorcycle bearing
registration no. DL7SCH9526. There was no injured at the spot as they were
already taken to the hospital in private vehicle by some public person. He made
inquiry with the public persons and asked them to join the investigation but
none agreed and left without disclosing their name or address but they only
informed us that injured was taken to the trauma centre. He left Ct. Akash at the
spot to preserve the same and went to the trauma centre. In the trauma centre, he
obtained MLC of injured Virender Kumar and Anoop Kumar. He inquired about
the incident and recorded the statement of one of the prepared rukka Ex.
KARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 7 / 24 SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:31:08 +0530
PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. The said rukka was prepared at the
spot and thereafter, handed over the same to Ct. Akash for getting the FIR
registered. Ct. Akash left the spot for the PS and after registration of FIR, he
returned to the spot and handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original
tehrir to him. He seized TSR bearing registration no. DL1RQ2781 and one
black pulsar motorcycle bearing registration no. DL7SCH9526 vide seizure
memos which are Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW10/C bearing his signature at point A
respectively. In the meantime, injured Anoop came at the spot and he prepared
the site plan at his instance which is already Ex. PW9/B bearing his signature at
point B. Thereafter, they searched for the accused at the spot but he could not be
traced. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and deposited the case
property in the malkhana of PS Timar Pur. On 28.09.2021, the mechanical
inspection of both vehicles was conducted. Thereafter, he traced the name and
address of owner of offending TSR and served notice u/s 133 MV Act to him.
The said notice alongwith reply of the owner namely Shokin is already Ex.
PW3/A bearing his signature at point B. The said owner namely Shokin replied
that he had sold the TSR to Smt. Praveen. Thereafter, he again served a notice
u/s 133 MV Act to Smt. Parveen and her reply was received wherein she stated
that at the time of accident, the said TSR was being driven by her son-in-law
namely Md. Shahid. The notice-cum-reply are already Ex. PW2/A bearing his
signature at point B. On 15.10.2021, he alongwith with HC Manoj Kumar was
present in the PS. In the meantime, the owner namely Smt. Praveen of the
offending TSR bearing registration no. DL1RQ2781 produced the driver of the
said vehicle. After inquiry, he arrested the accused at the instance of the eye-
witness Anoop Kumar who came to the PS for inquiry accused at the instance of
the eye-witness Anoop Kumar, who came to the PS for inquiry of his case vide
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 8 / 24 Digitally
signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
17:31:15
+0530
arrest memo already Ex. PW8/A bearing his signature at point C. He also
conducted personal search of the accused vide memo which is already Ex.
PW8/B memo already bearing his signature at point B. Thereafter, he recorded
the statement of Anoop Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, accused Shahid
produced his DL and he seized the same vide seizure memo which is already
Ex. PW8/D bearing his signature at point B. Smt. Parveen also produced the
documents of the offending TSR and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.
PW10/D bearing his signature at point A.ADMISSION / DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS:
20. Accused, in his statement under Section 294 Cr.P.C. did not dispute
the genuineness and correctness of FIR No. 317/2021, Ex. AD1, Endorsement
on Rukka from point A to A1 Ex. AD2, Certificate u/s 65B IEA, Ex. AD3, DD
NO. 29A Ex. AD4, DD No. 50A, Ex. AD5, MLC Report No. 28626 Ex. AD6,
X-Ray report no. 28626/2021 Ex. AD-7, MLC Report no. 28628, Ex. AD8, X-
Ray Report No. 28628/2021 as Ex. AD-9. Resultantly, the witnesses namely Dr.
Santosh, Dr. Abhinav Kumar Maurya, Dr. Chetanya and DO/HC Anil Kumar
were dropped.
STATEMENT / DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED:
21. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused denied each
incriminating circumstance and he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the
present matter and that on the day of incident he was not driving the aforesaid TSR
and was not available at the spot. He did not lead defence evidence.
22. The respective submissions of Sh. Deepak, learned Assistant Public
KARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 9 / 24 SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:31:26 +0530
Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Vinay Rathi, learned LAC for the accused have
been considered. The record has been thoroughly and carefully perused.
23. It is argued by the Ld. APP for the State that State has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand it is argued by Ld. Counsel for the
accused that the accused was not present at the place of spot. He further submitted
that the witness PW3 has not supported the case of prosecution. It has been submitted
that there are inherent contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and
that PW-7 is not even aware of the registration no. of TSR. It has been submitted that
PW5 refused his signatures on his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. That PW5 is not even
aware of make of the motorcyle. It has been submitted that PW6 is not even aware of
the demage of the vehicle.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
24. Allegations against the accused are for offence under Section
279/337/338 IPC.
25. Section 279 IPC provides that “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”.
26. Section 337 IPC provides 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 maySTATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 10 / 24
KARANBIR
SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:31:34 +0530
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.”
27. Section 338 IPC provides that “Whoever causes grievous 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 two years, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
28. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution was
under the obligation to prove the following essential ingredients of the offence
punishable u/s 279/337/338 IPC:
a. Identity of the accused being the driver of the offending
vehicle.
b. That the alleged accident is the result of rash and
negligent driving of the accused at a public place.
c. The rash and negligent driving of the accused resulted in
injuries to some of the passengers.
RE: IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED :
29. Ld. Counsel for the accused has submitted that the identity of the
acccused at the place of spot is not established. It has been submitted that PW3 has
clearly deposed that the exact date of sale of vehicle was 09.10.2021 and that the
agreement was executed on the same day. It has been submitted that on the day of
incident, the vehicle was not in the possession of accused and that the accused was
not driving the TSR. It has been submitted that the owner of the TSR is still Mr.
Shokeen and he is also the superdar of the vehicle. It has been submitted that theKARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 11 / 24 SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:31:41 +0530
accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter. The testimony of PW3
shows that he has resiled from his earlier statement, however, the agreement by which
the TSR has been sold is only a photocopy. It has not been proved in accordance with
the provisions of Indian Evidence Act. During the testimony of PW2, this agreement
was not put to the witness to ask what was the correct date of this agreement. In fact,
there is no cross-examination of PW2 on the aforesaid point. It is noteworthy that
PW2 Smt. Praveen is mother-in-law of accused and she has clearly deposed that he
was driving the TSR on the said date and she got to know that an accident has been
caused when accused was driving TSR to Wazirabad Majar. It is not clear as to why a
mother-in-law would depose against her son-in-law in case he was actually not
present at the spot. Further, the injured PW7 and PW9 both have identified the
accused in the court. PW2 also identified the accused and she also identified the TSR.
Hence, identity of accused and his presence at the spot is established by the testimony
of PW2, PW7 and PW9. The cross-examination of PW3 on 11.11.2024 appears to be
an after thought. Hence, identity of accused and his presence at the spot is
established.
30. As far as evidence of PW3 is concerned, the evidence of hostile
witness can be relied upon, at least to the extent, it supports the case of
prosecution. In Sathya Narayanan v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, (2012)
12 SCC 627, Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision rendered in
Mrinal Das & Others v. State of Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479 where while
reiterating that corroborated part of evidence of hostile witness regarding
commission of offence is admissible, it was held as under:-
“67. It is settled law that corroborated part of
evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of
offence is admissible. The fact that the witness was
declared hostile at the instance of the PublicKARANBIR
SINGH
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 12 / 24
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR
SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:31:49 +0530
Prosecutor and he was allowed to cross-examine the
witness furnishes no justification for rejecting en bloc
the evidence of the witness. However, the Court has to
be very careful, as prima facie, a witness who makes
different statements at different times, has no regard
for the truth. His evidence has to be read and
considered as a whole with a view to find out whether
any weight should be attached to it. The Court should
be slow to act on the testimony of such a witness,
normally, it should look for corroboration with other
witnesses. Merely because a witness deviates from his
statement made in the FIR, his evidence cannot be
held to be totally unreliable. To make it clear that
evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at least
up to the extent, he supported the case of prosecution.
The evidence of a person does not become effaced
from the record merely because he has turned hostile
and his deposition must be examined more cautiously
to find out as to what extent he has supported the case
of the prosecution.”
31. The law is now well settled that even if a witness does not wholly
support the case of the prosecution his testimony is not to be discarded
altogether, and that part of the testimony of the witness can be considered and
relied upon as supports the case of prosecution. It is the consistent view taken
by Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Court that the fact that the witness
KARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 13 / 24 SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:31:55 +0530
has been declared hostile at the instance of public prosecutor and was allowed to
be cross-examined furnishes no justification for rejecting en block the evidence
of the witness. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or
washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent his
version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof, as held in
number of judgments viz. State of Gujarat vs. Anirudh Singh and Anr.,
(1997) 6 SCC 514; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Sahib and Ors. Vs. State of
U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450; Mahesh vs. State of Maharastra, (2008) 13 SCC
271; Rajender and Anr. Vs. State of U.P., (2009) 13 SCC 480; Govindapa
and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka, (2010) 6 SCC 533; Paramjit Singh @
Pamma vs. State of Uttrakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200; Rameshbhai
Moahanbhai Koli and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat, (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 102;
Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (1999) 8 SCC 624;
Prithi vs. State of Haryana, (2010) 8 SCC 536 and Ramesh Harijan Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 777.
32. In view of this legal position, testimony of PW3 is not to be
discarded altogether. PW3 has also identified the accused and when he received
any notice from the police officials, he clearly replied that he has sold the
vehicle to Smt. Praveen. PW2 Praveen has also corroborated the same.
33. Thus, the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused is not acceptable
to the court. The reply of PW2 Ex. PW2/A has been proved by her and it clearly
proves that the accused was driving the said vehicle on the day of incident. The said
document has not been denied by the accused and not a single question has been
asked in the cross-examination on the said document. Hence, the prosecution has
KARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 14 / 24 SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:32:02 +0530
proved the first ingredient.
RE: ALLEGED ACCIDENT IS THE RESULT OF RASH AND
NEGLIGENT DRIVING OF THE ACCUSED AT A PUBLIC PLACE.
34. It has coming statement of PW7 and PW9 that on 26.09.2021 at
about 01:40 p.m., when they stopped at Signature Bridge and park the
motorcycle on the side to look at the Signature Bridge then a TSR bearing no.
DL1RQ2781 came from the side of Khajuri at a high speed and in rash and
negligent manner. The photographs of the vehicles Ex. P2 (colly) and Ex. P1
(colly) also pointout the rashness and the negligence. The same is corroborated
by the mechanical inspection report which is Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B which
shows the demage on the TSR in the front, head light and the chasis. The
accused has even though stated that he has been falsely implicated, he has not
prescribed any motive as to why PW7 or PW9 would falsely implicate him.
35. Thus it stands proved that accused was driving the vehicle at the
public place. It was held in Niranjan Singh vs. The State (Delhi
Administration) 1977 CriLJ 333 held that 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 or 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
Digitally
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 15 / 24 signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
17:32:16
+0530
imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Thus the main criterion
for deciding whether the driving which led to the accident was rash and
negligent is not only the speed of the offending vehicle but deliberate disregard
to the obligation of its driver to drive with due care and attention and taking a
risk indifference as to the harmful consequences resulting from it. In a case of
this nature, the test is whether the prosecution has proved that :
(i) the accused was driving the vehicle in such a manner
as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing
physical injury to some other person who might happen to
be using the road or doing substantial damage to the
property;
(ii) in driving the vehicle in that manner the accused did so
without having given any thought to the possibility of there
being any such risk or, having recognized that there was
some risk involved, had nonetheless gone on to take it;
and
(iii) the rash or negligent act of the accused was the
proximate cause of the death of the deceased.
36. Thus, it stands proved that accused was driving the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and death of the deceased is the direct cause of the act of
the accused.
37. The submission of the learned defence counsel for the accused that
no independent witness has been joined by the prosecution at any point of time
is devoid of any merit. Although it is true that, no public witness has ever been
KARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 16 / 24 SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:32:30 +0530
joined at any point of time, however, this fact by itself cannot be a ground for
rejecting the unimpeached testimony of the prosecution witnesses because PW-7
and PW-9 were the eye witness of the incident and are injured witnesses.
38. The law regarding injured witness is by now well settled. Where a
witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony
of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness
that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime
and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate
someone. “Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness”.
(Vide Ramlagan Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC
2593; Malkhan Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC
12; Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 957; Appabhai &
Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696; Bonkya alias Bharat Shivaji
Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra , (1995) 6 SCC 447; Mohar & Anr. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh, (2002) 7 SCC 606; Dinesh Kumar v. State of
Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270; Vishnu & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2009)
10 SCC 477; Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2261; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra,
(2010) 6 SCC 673).
39. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994
Supp (3) SCC 235, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that 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,
for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is
Digitally
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 17 / 24 signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
17:32:36
+0530
proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
40. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar
view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has
its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the
time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present
during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-
examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be
relied upon vide Krishan v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459).
41. 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.
42. In Vadivelu Thevar vs. The State of Madras, 1957 AIR 614 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court says :
“11. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation
in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the
court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too
broadly stated. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, has
categorically laid it down that “no particular number of
Digitally
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 18 / 24 signed by
KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
17:32:43
+0530
witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of
any fact”. The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872,
presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons,
that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact,
to call any particular number of witnesses. In England,
both before and after the passing of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out
in Sarkar’s Law of Evidence — 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and
1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single
witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying
down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized
in Section 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the
well recognized maxim that “Evidence has to be weighed
and not counted”. Our Legislature has given statutory
recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be
hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be
insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been
committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving
aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence,
where determination of guilt depends entirely on
circumstantial evidence. If the legislature were to insist
upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a
single witness only could be available in proof of the
crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion
of the presiding judge comes into play. The matter thus
must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the
KARANBIR
SINGH
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 19 / 24
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:32:49 +0530
quality of the evidence of the single witness whose
testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a
testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there
is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused
person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused
person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness,
the innocence of an accused person may be established on
the testimony of a single witness, even though a
considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to
testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in
our opinion, it is a sound and well- established rule of law
that the court is concerned with the quality and not with
the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or
disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in
this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no
difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may
convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness,
if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of
interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second
category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to
its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the
court has to be circumspect and has to look for
KARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 20 / 24 SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:32:55 +0530
corroboration in material particulars by reliable
testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another
danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of
the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts
were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact,
they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of
witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a
single person is available to give evidence in support of a
disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully
such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is
reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral
testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon
such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents
where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony
of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are
exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual
offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are
cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature,
suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where
there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it
becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied
that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable.
We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the
testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable
evidence in support of the prosecution.”
KARANBIR
SINGH
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 21 / 24
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:33:01 +0530
43. In the present matter, the testimony of PW7 and PW9 is consistent and
inspire confidence. The law is well-settled that minor contradictions do not make the
evidence of the witness as not reliable. Further the ocular evidence find
corroboration from medical evidence. Medical evidence comprised in the MLC
and the X-Rays, is also consistent and points conclusively towards guilt of the
accused. The MLC clearly shows that PW7 suffered a grievous injury due to the
negligence of accused and the MLC Ex. AD8 is also shown as nature of injury
to PW9 is simple. The same further finds corroboration in the X-Rays which are
on record.
44. As regards, the contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses, it has been held in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh v. Naresh and Ors.: (2011) 4 SCC 324, it was observed:-
“30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are
bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to
normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory
due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as
shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the
omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious
doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other
witnesses also make material improvement while
deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to
rely upon. However, minor contradictions,
inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on
trivial matters which do not affect the core of the
prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which
KARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 22 / 24 SINGHDigitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:33:09 +0530
the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has
to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness
and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires
confidence.”
45. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be
one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire
evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.’
Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be
dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made
by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in
material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or
core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be
discredited. [Vide State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587, Arumugam v.
State, (2008) 15 SCC 590; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2009)
11 SCC 334 and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of
Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657.]
46. Similar view was taken by Hon’ble Apex Court in the latest
pronouncement reported as Shahaja @ Shahajan Ismail Mohd. Shaikh Vs.
State of Maharashtra Crl. Appeal No. 739 of 2017 decided on 14.07.2022
where it was observed as under :-
“Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the
core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking
sentences torn out of context here or there from the
evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
KARANBIR
STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 23 / 24 SINGH
Digitally signed by
KARANBIR SINGH
Date: 2025.01.18
17:33:16 +0530
committed by the investigating officer not going to the
root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection
of the evidence as a whole.”
47. From the testimony of the witnesses, it stands proved that it was the
accused who was driving TSR in a rash and negligent manner on the fateful day
and time when the complainant was looking at the Signature Bridge. As such
offence u/s 279/337/338 IPC stands proved. Accused is accordingly held guilty
and convicted for commission of offences punishable under Section
279/337/338 IPC. Digitally signed
by KARANBIR
KARANBIR SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.01.18
17:33:23 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (Karanbir Singh)
COURT ON 18th JANUARY 2025 JMFC-02, Central District
Tis Hazari Courts/18.01.2025This judgment consists of 24 pages and each and every page of this
judgment is signed by me.
Digitally signed by KARANBIR SINGH KARANBIR Date: SINGH 2025.01.18 17:33:28 +0530 (Karanbir Singh) JMFC-02, Central District Tis Hazari Courts/18.01.2025 STATE Vs. SHAHID FIR No. 317/2021 PS TIMARPUR PAGE NO. 24 / 24
[ad_1]
Source link