State (Govt of Nct of Delhi) vs.ranjeet Kumar - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1221449
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided OnFeb-14-2019
AppellantState (Govt of Nct of Delhi)
RespondentRanjeet Kumar
Excerpt:
* % + in the high court of delhi at new delhi decided on:14. h february, 2019 crl.a. 435/2017 represented by: ms.rajni gupta, app for the state ..... appellant state (govt of nct of delhi) coram: hon'ble ms. justice mukta gupta mukta gupta, j.(oral) versus ranjeet kumar represented by: mr.pramod kumar, advocate ..... respondent 1.2. admit. by the present appeal, the state challenges the impugned judgment dated 11th december 2014 whereby the respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 279/338/304-a ipc in fir no.55/2010 registered at ps saket.3. learned app for the state contends that there was no traffic signal nearby and the truck driver was rash and negligent while driving.4. learned counsel for the respondent contends that the cyclist came from the left side of the truck and immediately turned right due to which the respondent could not control his vehicle. thus, he having not committed any rash and negligent act, the acquittal be upheld.5. process of law was set into motion on 6th march 2010 at about 10:15 p.m., when information was received about an accident near sheikh sarai crl.a. 435/2017 page 1 of 5 authority bhagat singh college where a man was lying dead. aforesaid information was recorded vide dd no.19a which was assigned to asi manvir singh. he along with ct. bhoor singh reached at the spot i.e. press enclave road, near seikh sarai authority, red light where one bicycle and one dcm toyota bearing number dl1lg1933was found in accidental condition. they came to know that both the injured had already been shifted to hospital by pcr van. he left ct. bhoor singh at the spot and reached at aiims trauma center along with the driver and obtained the mlc of injured dharampal and rajender. injured rajender succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.6. thereafter, statement of dharampal singh was recorded wherein he stated that on 6th march 2010 he and his friend rajender kumar shut his office and were going home on his bicycle. he reached at the sheikh sarai authority red light at about 10:10 p.m. at that time a dcm toyota no dl- 1lb-1933, was coming in a very rash and negligent manner and hit his bicycle due to which both dharampal and rajender fell on the road. the driver of dcm toyota drove the vehicle over the cycle due to which he and his friend rajender sustained injuries. with the help of public persons he caught hold of the driver namely ranjeet kumar. the pcr officials took them to aiims hospital trauma center. aforesaid statement was recorded vide ex. pw-1/a. on the basis of the aforesaid statement, fir no.55/2010 was lodged at ps saket for the offence punishable under sections 279/337/304a ipc.7. thereafter the investigating officer prepared the site plan vide ex.pw- 4/b. he seized the cycle and the offending vehicle vide seizure memo ex.pw-3/a and ex.pw-3/b. ranjeet kumar was arrested vide arrest memo crl.a. 435/2017 page 2 of 5 ex.pw-1/b. his personal search was conducted vide ex.pw-1/c and his driving license was seized vide ex.pw-1/d. thereafter, the respondent was released on bail. mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle and the bicycle was got done. after the postmortem of the deceased, the body was handed over to his legal heirs. on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charge for offences punishable under sections 279/338/304a ipc against the respondent.8. dharampal (pw-1) complainant deposed in sync with his complaint made to the police.9. t.u. sidhqui, (pw-2) mechanical inspector deposed that on 7th march 2010, he had inspected dcm toyota bearing no.dl-1-lb-1933 and prepared the report vide ex.pw-2/a wherein the following damages were noticed on the vehicle: i. front bumper dented/pressed/grill damaged ii. front show dented/ pressed iii. front windscreen glass broken iv. right side outside mirror damaged v. brakes ok. vi. vehicle on road vii. rear display board both sides completely damaged.10. the atlas cycle was inspected and report prepared vide ex.pw-2/a wherein the following damages were noticed on the cycle: i. rear wheel rim pressed/rear tyre & tube damaged. ii. rear carrier dented/pressed iii. chassis frame pressed iv. brakes damaged in accident v. vehicle off road 11. the respondent in his statement recorded under section 313 cr.p.c. crl.a. 435/2017 page 3 of 5 stated that he was not driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. the accident took place at sheikh sarai red light, as he was moving towards sheikh sarai the cyclist suddenly moved his bicycle towards the right side as a result of which the accident took place.12. the site plan ex.pw-4/b is reproduced as under: ‘ ’ 13. while arriving at the finding of acquittal and accepting the version of the respondent, the learned trial court failed to notice the site plan ex.pw- 4/b, the photographs of the scene of occurrence and the mechanical inspection reports. the defence of the respondent as noted above in his statement under section 313 cr.p.c. was that the accident took place at sheik sarai red light and while he was moving towards sheikh sarai, the cyclist i.e. the deceased who was riding the cycle suddenly moved his bicycle towards the right side as a result of which the accident took place. the site plan clearly shows that the red light was on the brt and sheikh sarai road intersection whereas the accident took place much prior thereto; crl.a. 435/2017 page 4 of 5 where if one comes from the brt and turns towards right there is a cut on the intersection leading to a slip road towards the sheikh sarai authority. the photographs clearly show that the cycle was crushed under the right wheel of the toyota dcm vehicle admittedly driven by the respondent. if the version of the respondent is to be accepted then the impact would have been also on the left side first of the toyota vehicle, thereafter pushing the rider and the pillion rider towards other direction. the finding of the learned trial court that the complainant could not even see the red light which was nearby fails to notice that the accident took place at the intersection prior to the red light on the main brt corridor and not just before the brt corridor. the mechanical inspection report of the two vehicles shows that the rear side of the cycle was hit by the front right side of the dcm toyota vehicle belying version of the respondent in his statement under section 313 cr.p.c. merely because the complainant did not see at what speed the vehicle was being driven by the respondent cannot be in every case the criteria to judge that the vehicle was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner. the impact on the cycle from behind is also one of the indications that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.14. in view of the discussion aforesaid the findings of the learned trial court are totally perverse and are thus set aside. the respondent is convicted for offences punishable under section 279/338/304a ipc.15. list for order on sentence on 28th march, 2019 when the respondent will be present in court. february14 2019 ‘vj/ga’ (mukta gupta) judge crl.a. 435/2017 page 5 of 5
Judgment:

* % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on:

14. h February, 2019 CRL.A. 435/2017 Represented by: Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the State ..... Appellant STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.

(ORAL) versus RANJEET KUMAR Represented by: Mr.Pramod Kumar, Advocate ..... Respondent 1.

2. Admit. By the present appeal, the State challenges the impugned judgment dated 11th December 2014 whereby the respondent was acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC in FIR No.55/2010 registered at PS Saket.

3. Learned APP for the State contends that there was no traffic signal nearby and the truck driver was rash and negligent while driving.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the cyclist came from the left side of the truck and immediately turned right due to which the respondent could not control his vehicle. Thus, he having not committed any rash and negligent act, the acquittal be upheld.

5. Process of law was set into motion on 6th March 2010 at about 10:15 P.M., when information was received about an accident near Sheikh Sarai CRL.A. 435/2017 Page 1 of 5 Authority Bhagat Singh College where a man was lying dead. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD No.19A which was assigned to ASI Manvir Singh. He along with Ct. Bhoor Singh reached at the spot i.e. Press Enclave Road, near Seikh Sarai Authority, red light where one bicycle and one DCM Toyota bearing number DL1LG1933was found in accidental condition. They came to know that both the injured had already been shifted to hospital by PCR Van. He left Ct. Bhoor Singh at the spot and reached at AIIMS Trauma Center along with the driver and obtained the MLC of injured Dharampal and Rajender. Injured Rajender succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.

6. Thereafter, statement of Dharampal Singh was recorded wherein he stated that on 6th March 2010 he and his friend Rajender Kumar shut his office and were going home on his bicycle. He reached at the Sheikh Sarai Authority Red Light at about 10:10 P.M. At that time a DCM Toyota No Dl- 1LB-1933, was coming in a very rash and negligent manner and hit his bicycle due to which both Dharampal and Rajender fell on the road. The driver of DCM Toyota drove the vehicle over the cycle due to which he and his friend Rajender sustained injuries. With the help of public persons he caught hold of the driver namely Ranjeet Kumar. The PCR officials took them to AIIMS Hospital Trauma Center. Aforesaid statement was recorded vide Ex. PW-1/A. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR No.55/2010 was lodged at PS Saket for the offence punishable under Sections 279/337/304A IPC.

7. Thereafter the investigating officer prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW- 4/B. He seized the cycle and the offending vehicle vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/A and Ex.PW-3/B. Ranjeet Kumar was arrested vide arrest memo CRL.A. 435/2017 Page 2 of 5 Ex.PW-1/B. His personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW-1/C and his driving license was seized vide Ex.PW-1/D. Thereafter, the respondent was released on bail. Mechanical inspection of the offending vehicle and the bicycle was got done. After the postmortem of the deceased, the body was handed over to his legal heirs. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and charge for offences punishable under sections 279/338/304A IPC against the respondent.

8. Dharampal (PW-1) complainant deposed in sync with his complaint made to the police.

9. T.U. Sidhqui, (PW-2) Mechanical Inspector deposed that on 7th March 2010, he had inspected DCM Toyota bearing No.DL-1-LB-1933 and prepared the report vide Ex.PW-2/A wherein the following damages were noticed on the vehicle: i. Front Bumper dented/Pressed/Grill damaged ii. Front Show dented/ Pressed iii. Front Windscreen Glass Broken iv. Right Side outside mirror damaged v. Brakes OK. vi. Vehicle on Road vii. Rear Display Board Both Sides completely damaged.

10. The Atlas cycle was inspected and report prepared vide Ex.PW-2/A wherein the following damages were noticed on the cycle: i. Rear wheel rim pressed/Rear Tyre & Tube damaged. ii. Rear Carrier dented/pressed iii. Chassis frame pressed iv. Brakes damaged in accident v. Vehicle off Road 11. The respondent in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. CRL.A. 435/2017 Page 3 of 5 stated that he was not driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The accident took place at Sheikh Sarai red light, as he was moving towards Sheikh Sarai the cyclist suddenly moved his bicycle towards the right side as a result of which the accident took place.

12. The site plan Ex.PW-4/B is reproduced as under: ‘ ’ 13. While arriving at the finding of acquittal and accepting the version of the respondent, the learned Trial Court failed to notice the site plan Ex.PW- 4/B, the photographs of the scene of occurrence and the mechanical inspection reports. The defence of the respondent as noted above in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was that the accident took place at Sheik Sarai red light and while he was moving towards Sheikh Sarai, the cyclist i.e. the deceased who was riding the cycle suddenly moved his bicycle towards the right side as a result of which the accident took place. The site plan clearly shows that the red light was on the BRT and Sheikh Sarai road intersection whereas the accident took place much prior thereto; CRL.A. 435/2017 Page 4 of 5 where if one comes from the BRT and turns towards right there is a cut on the intersection leading to a slip road towards the Sheikh Sarai Authority. The photographs clearly show that the cycle was crushed under the right wheel of the Toyota DCM Vehicle admittedly driven by the respondent. If the version of the respondent is to be accepted then the impact would have been also on the left side first of the Toyota vehicle, thereafter pushing the rider and the pillion rider towards other direction. The finding of the learned Trial Court that the complainant could not even see the red light which was nearby fails to notice that the accident took place at the intersection prior to the red light on the main BRT corridor and not just before the BRT corridor. The mechanical inspection report of the two vehicles shows that the rear side of the cycle was hit by the front right side of the DCM Toyota vehicle belying version of the respondent in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Merely because the complainant did not see at what speed the vehicle was being driven by the respondent cannot be in every case the criteria to judge that the vehicle was not being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The impact on the cycle from behind is also one of the indications that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

14. In view of the discussion aforesaid the findings of the learned Trial Court are totally perverse and are thus set aside. The respondent is convicted for offences punishable under Section 279/338/304A IPC.

15. List for order on sentence on 28th March, 2019 when the respondent will be present in Court. FEBRUARY14 2019 ‘vj/ga’ (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE CRL.A. 435/2017 Page 5 of 5