[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Suresh Kumar on 10 June, 2025
In the Court of Ms. Isra Zaidi: JMFC-04, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
State Vs. Suresh Kumar
FIR No. 226/2007
U/sec. 279/304A IPC
PS: Khajuri Khas
Date of institution of the case:18.10.2007
Date for final arguments: 10.06.2025
Date on which Judgment is delivered: 10.06.2025
CNR No. DLNE-02-000124-2007
JUDGMENT
a) Cr. No. of the case : 463022/2015
b) Date of commission of the offence : 18.05.2007
c) Name of the complainant : Sh. Bhagya Narayan
d) Name of the accused and his parentage : Suresh Kumar,
S/o Sh. Vijender Singh
e) Offence complained of : Section 279/304A IPC
f) Offence charged of : Section 279/304A IPC
g) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final order : Acquitted
i) Date of such order : 10.06.2025
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 16:24:12
2025.06.09
+0800
FIR No.226/2007 1/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar
Brief facts of the case
1. Succinctly stated the facts discernible from the present complaint are that on
18.05.2007 when the complainant reached Bhajanapura market red light, then one
RTV who was ahead of the complainant had hit a cyclist. When he saw the cyclist, he
came to know that he was his neighbour Bhushan. He dialed at 100 number.
Thereafter, present FIR against the RTV driver (hereinafter referred to as the accused)
was registered under section 279/304A IPC.
Court Proceedings
2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under sections 279/304A
IPC was filed before the court against the accused. The then Learned Magistrate took
cognizance on 18.10.2007 and accused was summoned to face the trial. On his
appearance in the Court, copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution were
supplied to him as per norms. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.08.2011 notice under
sections 279/304A IPC was framed against the accused Suresh Kumar to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the matter was listed for PE.
Prosecution Evidence
3. In order to prove and substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined
following witnesses.
Prosecution Witnesses
S. No. Witness number Name of the witness
1. PW1 HC Harman Singh
2. PW2 Sh. Satpal Singh
3. PW3 Sh. Bhagya Narayan
4. PW4 Sh. Jagdish (who identified the dead
body of the deceased
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:24:19
+0800
FIR No.226/2007 2/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar
Documents relied upon by the prosecution
S. No. Ex./Mark Nature of documents
1. Ex. PW1/A Seizure memo of RTV
2. Ex. PW1/B Seizure memo of cycle
3. Ex.PW1/DA Statement of HC Harman Singh
4. Mark-DA Seizure memo of DL
5. Mark-DB Seizure memo of RC
6. Ex.P1 RTV
7. Ex.PW-2/A Superdarinama of RTV
8. Ex.PW-2/B to Photographs of RTV
Ex.PW-2/F
9. Ex.PW-3/A Statement of Sh. Bhagya Narayan
10. Ex.PW-4/A Dead body identification memo
Statement of the Accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C
4. The accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C examined on 14.05.2025. The accused stated that
he is innocent. He was not present at the place of incident. No accident had occurred
from his vehicle. No TSR was in his name. Police officials falsely implicated him in
the present case.
Evidence of the Defence
5. No defence evidence was led by the accused despite granting him an
opportunity.
Final Arguments
6. The court heard final arguments on behalf of the both the parties on
10.06.2025. Ld. Counsel for the accused submitted that the case against the accused
is false and frivolous and has prayed that accused be acquitted of the offence charged.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:24:32
+0800
FIR No.226/2007 3/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar
He pointed out various discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witness.
Learned APP for the state submitted that accused be convicted of the offences under
the above-mentioned sections as there is sufficient evidence on record to convict the
accused. This court has heard the submissions of Ld. APP for the State and Ld.
Counsel for the accused. The court has also diligently gone through the charge-sheet,
documents, evidence recorded and the entire material on record.
Brief reasons for the just decision of the case:
7. In the instant case, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution had to prove the following ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 279
IPC beyond reasonable doubt:
Section 279 IPC:-
“Rash driving or riding on a public way – 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”.
Section 304A IPC:-
“Causing death by negligence – 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 fine or with both”.
8. Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way so as to
endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an
offence. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper
care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances
of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil
consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of
duty imposed by law. The question whether conduct of the accused amounted to
culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 16:24:41
2025.06.09+0800
FIR No.226/2007 4/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar
amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would
consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal
rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is
dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done
without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
9. Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is observed that the
essential ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter
alia are that there must be,”rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and
the act must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to
any person.”
10. Section 279 IPC makes rash driving or riding on a public way so as to
endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person an
offence. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil
consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of
duty imposed by law. The question whether conduct of the accused amounted to
culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the
amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would
consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal
rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is
dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done
without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.
Relevantly, from a perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is observed that the essential
ingredients to constitute an offence punishable under Section 279 IPC inter alia are
that there must be,”rash and negligent driving or riding on a public way and the act
must be so as to endanger human life or be likely to cause hurt or injury to any
person.”
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:24:51
+0800FIR No.226/2007 5/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar
11. Section 304A IPC punishes any rash or negligent act of a person which causes
death of any person not amounting to culpable homicide. It has to be determined if
the act of the accused was rash or negligent. Concurrently, the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in Ras Bihari Singh vs. NCT of Delhi (2017 SCC Online Del 12290), while
explicating the ingredients of the offence(s) under section 279/304A IPC inter alia
observed as under;
“9. To constitute an offence under section 279/304A IPC, it must be
shown that the person was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent
manner. Criminal negligence or criminal rashness is an important
element of the offence under section 279 IPC.”
12. In a road accident case, to convict a person for the offence punishable under
section 304A IPC, the prosecution is required to bring on record the basic
requirement of the said Section i.e. “Rash or Negligent Act” with following
conditions:
1) There must be death of the person in question,
2) That the accused must have caused such death,
3) That such act of the accused was rash or negligent and that it did not amount
to culpable homicide.
13. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is
that of beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence of the accused has to
be rebutted by the prosecution by adducing cogent evidence that points towards the
guilt of the accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed keeping in
view the above legal standards.
14. PW1 deposed in his examination in chief that on 18.05.2007 he was posted at
PS Khajoori Khas as Head Constable. On that day on receipt of DD No.27A, he
joined investigation along with IO/ASI Rameshwar Singh and went to spot i.e. in
front of Bhajanpura Market, where one RTV bearing No. DL-1V-7196 was standing Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
FIR No.226/2007 6/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:25:01
+0800
and one cycle was lying in accidental condition. At the spot they came to know that
injured was already taken to GTB hospital by PCR. He was left at the spot and IO
went to the hospital. After sometime IO returned to the spot and prepared a rukka
and handed over same to him for registration of FIR.
15. In the cross-examination PW1 testified that he did not remember if he had
stated the place of occurrence in his statement before the IO. The attention of the
witness was drawn towards Ex.PW-1/DA where there was no mention of any location
of name of the locality and the area of the place of occurrence. He testified that no
eye witness of this accident came forward before the IO at the spot. The IO had not
recorded statement of any person before leaving for hospital. The IO left the spot
after five/ten minutes and came back after one hour. He further testified that he did
not remember if the wheel of driver side of RTV had burst and rim of the wheel had
bent. The RTV was lying ahead of the cycle and was at a distance of 4/5 yards from
cycle. He further testified that he did not remember whether the spot was got
photographed by IO or not. He admitted that in his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC there is
no mention about taking photographs of the spot. He further admitted that since the
spot was not photographed in his presence, he has not mentioned the same in his
statement. IO prepared the site plan. He testified that he did not remember whether
he had asked the name of that public person.
16. PW1 could not say whether IO had recorded his statement or obtained his
signatures on any paper. IO had prepared the site plan at his own. He had signed the
seizure memo of RTV but he could not say whether anybody has signed the same in
his presence. He admitted that IO had not recorded statement of anybody else at the
spot in his presence. He has not seen the document Mark-DA. Another document
Mark-DB was shown to the witness who admitted that although it bears his name and
designation at point-A but it does not bear his signatures and his name and
designation mentioned therein was not in his handwriting. Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:25:10
FIR No.226/2007 7/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar +0800
17. PW2 deposed in his examination in chief that on 18.05.2007 he got released
his RTV No. DL-1V-7196 on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW-2/A. Police
recorded his statement. The witness was not cross-examined by the accused despite
opportunity.
18. PW3 deposed in his examination in chief that on 18.05.2007 he was going to
Bhajanpura Market. At about 8.30 pm when he reached near red light of Bhajanpura
Market, then he saw driver of one RTV bearing No. DL-1V-7196 was driving his
RTV in rash and negligent manner. The driver of the RTV while driving rashly and
negligently hit one bicycle from his behind and due to impact of hitting by the driver
of RTV baring No. DL-1V-7196, the cyclist fell down on the road and cyclist came
under the wheel of the RTV bearing No. DL-1V-7196 and the RTV driver dragged
the cycle and injured for some distance and after some distance, RTV driver stopped
and on seeing public persons gathering there, the driver of RTV fled away leaving
RTV at the spot. He had seen the accused/driver at the spot. The driver of the RTV
bearing No. DL-1V-7196 was rash and negligent as the driver hit the cyclist from his
behind. Moreover, driver of the RTV bus was rash and negligent as he was in such a
haste and driving at a very fast speed in order to take passengers on his RTV. He
further deposed that when he reached near the cyclist, he found the injured was his
neighbourer.
19. In the cross-examination PW3 testified that he is illiterate and could not tell the
date, month and year of the incident. He could not tell the number of the offending
vehicle. He testified that his statement was not recorded by the police and they took
his signatures on some blank papers. He saw the accused for the first time in the PS
Khajuri Khas. He further testified that site plan was not prepared in his presence. He
admitted that he had not seen the incident and that he was not at the spot at the time
of incident. He testified that he deposed at the instance of the police in his Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:25:20
FIR No.226/2007 8/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar +0800
examination in chief.
20. PW3 completely resiled from his previous statement during cross-
examination and testified that he was not present on the spot. He saw accused for
the first time in PS. He admitted that he had not seen the accident and was not
present on the spot. He also testified that police took signature on bank papers.
21. It is no longer res integra that sole testimony of complainant can be relied upon
to convict an accused provided the same is reliable and credit-worthy. In the case of
Lallu Manjhi and Anr. v. State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India had classified oral testimony of witnesses into three
categories wholly reliable, wholly unreliable and neither wholly reliable nor wholly
unreliable.
22. At this stage it is pertinent to note that the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v.
State (2012)8 SCC the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had the attributes of a
sterling witness.
“The court held to test the quality of such a witness the status of a
witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant would-be
truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be
relevant would-be consistency of the statement right from the
starting point till the end, namely at the time when witness made the
initial statement and ultimately before the court. It must be natural
and consistent with the case of prosecution qua the accused. There
must not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The
witness should be in a position to withstand the test of cross
examination of any length howsoever strenuous it may be and under
no circumstance should give any room for any doubt as to the
factum of occurrence, the persons involved and the sequence of
it…”
23. PW3 had been inconsistent with his testimony before the court. He resiled
from his previous statement. He could not classified as a reliable witness.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:25:31
+0800FIR No.226/2007 9/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar
24. The evidentiary value of the spot map/sketch map prepared by the
investigating officer is relevant under section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
and since it is based on the actual observation of the officer at the crime scene, it
is treated as direct evidence and is admissible u/s 60 of Indian Evidence Act,
1872. It is well settled that every defect in the site plan cannot be fatal to the case
of the prosecution though non-mentioning of the essential features in the site plan
can create a doubt on the story of the prosecution. In the case of Shingara Singh
v. State of Haryana (2003)12 SCC 758 it was held that any defect in the site plan
creates a doubt regarding the place of occurrence and accused is entitled to get
the benefit of doubt. The site plan prepared by the IO was not even signed by the
complainant. It is doubtful that the site plan was prepared at the instance of the
complainant. Also, the site plan annexed is inadequate. It was incumbent upon
IO to scale an accurate site plan. The exact point of impact as well as tyre skid
marks and the point at which offending vehicle had come to rest after the
collision should have been specified.
25. The incident happened when many other independent were available. There
is no other independent public witness who could have supported the
uncorroborated testimony of the complainant. No other public
witness/independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to
corroborate the complainant. No reliance can be placed on uncorroborated
testimony of PW3 as he has completely resiled from his previous statement.
26. In case of Pradeep Narayan State of Maharashtra (AIR 1995 SC 1930)
held that failure of police to join witness from locality during search creates
doubt about fairness of investigation, benefit of which has to go to the accused.
27. There was no occasion for the Court to examine IO as a prosecution
witness as he had expired. The entire testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:25:42
+0800
FIR No.226/2007 10/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar
silent about the rash and negligent manner in which the offending vehicle was
being driven by the accused. The testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses
are completely silent that death was caused by accused by doing an act in a rash
or negligent manner. The rash or negligent act on part of accused could not be
specified by the prime witnesses in the present case. No judicial Test Identification
Parade of the accused was conducted which could have been relevant u/s 9 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Now adverting to the testimonies of the Police witnesses they
were not an eye witness to the incident. None of the police witnesses witnessed the
accident.
28. No photography or videography was conducted by the IO just immediately
after the accident. The photography or videography of site and surrounding areas
ought to have been conducted so that the exact topography could have been discerned
by this Court. The investigation has been conducted in a routine and a stereotypical
manner. Mere testimonies of the police witnesses are insufficient and cannot be made
a sole basis of the conviction of the accused person. PW3 the eye witness does not
appear to be credit worthy.
29. It is an adage that law works on the wheels of evidence. Every criminal trial is
a journey of discovering and unfolding the truth. But in the present case no sufficient
evidence is there on record to warrant the conviction of the accused person. In the
case of Prem Singh Yadav Vs. CBI 178 (2011) DLT 529 it was held that where it is
possible to have both views one in favor of prosecution and one in favor of accused,
the later one should prevail. The prosecution could not prove by the prosecution
beyond reasonable doubt. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution
to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The burden never
shifts. An accused enjoys the presumption of innocence. There is no duty on an
accused person to purge himself of guilt. Where there is a lingering doubt, the
accused person is given the benefit of the doubt. Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:26:07
+0800
FIR No.226/2007 11/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar
30. For the reasons outlined above, this court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to discharge the heavy burden imposed on it by law of
satisfying this court beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
31. Consequently, accused Suresh Kumar is acquitted in the present case for
offence u/s 279/304A IPC.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court today.
This judgment contains 12 pages and each page bears my signature.
Digitally
signed by
ISRA ISRA
Date:
ZAIDI
ZAIDI 2025.06.09
16:26:15
+0800(Isra Zaidi)
JMFC-04/NE/KKD/Delhi
10.06.2025FIR No.226/2007 12/12 State Vs. Suresh Kumar
[ad_2]
Source link