In this post we will discuss about acquittal of a person in reckless driving case because the prosecution was not able to prove the doubt beyond reasonable doubt.
State vs. Dharambir on 5 March 2020
A case was instituted against the accused Dharambir Singh in the court on 06.02.1992 for the commission of offences under section 279 and 338 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on 19.08.1991 at about 4:50 PM in front of the Mandir Marg, New Delhi, the accused was driving the offending vehicle bearing registration No. DL1B-0096 in a rash and negligent manner and endangered human life and safety of others. The protection also alleged that the accused was driving the offending vehicle without possessing the license for plying a commercial vehicle and therefore liable to be prosecuted under Section 279 and 338 IPC and Section 3/181 of the MV Act.
After the institution of the case, the accused appeared before the court, as per the proceeding sheets, only on 22.05.1992 and thereafter avoided appearing before the court as a consequence of which the accused was declared a proclaimed offender by the court by an order dated 27.04.1994. Subsequently, a witness, one Shiv Mangal Singh, was examined in the case under Section 299 Cr.P.C on 17.09.1994.
On 06.12.2018 the accused Dharambir Singh was apprehended under 41.1(c)Cr.P.C by the police official of PS Mandir Marg but was admitted to bail on the same date and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, a copy of the main charge sheet, as well as the Kalandra in which he was arrested, was supplied to the accused. Thereupon after hearing both the parties, a formal charge under Section 279,338 and 3/181 MV Act and also for the offence under Section 174A IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
ALSO READ- MACT CLAIM CHANDIGARH PANCHKULA MOHALI ZIRAKPUR KHARAR
In order to prove the above-mentioned offence, the protection cited as many as nine witnesses out of which only PW-2 Geeta Devi, the victim in the present case, and PW-3 Chander Singh, the officer assisting the IO in the investigation, appeared before the court for formal examination.
During the course of the prosecution evidence, PW Ram Avtar, PW Kaidar Nath Sharma, PW Hardeep Singh remained unserved despite an attempt made by the DCP to serve summons upon them. Accordingly these, three witnesses were dropped from the array of witnesses. Furthermore, Dr N. Sharma and Dr N. Gupta and DO and Mechanical Inspector were also dropped from the array of witnesses as the accused by a statement submitted the documents such as MLC of the injured Geeta Devi, mechanical inspection report of the offending vehicle and the fact of registration of FIR. In the course of prosecution evidence, it was learned that PW Balwant Singh has deceased and therefore he was also dropped from the array of witnesses and was not formally examined.
And under such circumstances, there is only the testimony of Geeta Devi(PW-1) along with the testimony of Shiva Mangal Singh( eye witness and complainant) recorded under Section 299 Cr.P.C and the testimony of PW Chander Singh, who assisted the IO in the investigation but did not witness the accident, on record to support the case of the prosecution.
The court examined the entire testimony of the complainant and arrived at the conclusion that there is not a single iota of incriminating evidence against the accused in the testimony of PW Shiv Mangal Singh. The court observed that there is no assertion in the entire testimony of the complainant that the accused was driving rashly or negligently, instead through his testimony it has been learned that the accident happened when the victim was trying to cross the road.
In order to bring home the charge under Section 279 and 338 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently so as to endanger the life and personal safety of others and moreover the prosecution also has to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the injury caused to the victim is a direct consequence of rash and negligent driving on the part of the accused. However, considering the testimony of the complainant, PW Shiv Mangal Singh, who is also the eye witness in the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of occurrence of the accident.
The Hon’ble court noted that the victim herself has not supported the case of the prosecution. The court remarked that it would not be farfetched to assume that PW-2 Geeta Devi had turned hostile. PW-2 has not given any details in her testimony which may assist the court to contemplate as to how the offending vehicle was being driven at the time of the accident. Furthermore, PW-2 has also failed to recognise the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle. She even denied that she had given any statement to the police under Section 161Cr.P.C, even when the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State questioned her she either answered that she does not know or negated the suggestions put forth by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
ALSO READ- DRIVERS CAUTION: DO YOU KNOW THE AMENDMENTS IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACT?
Under such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to bring any incriminating evidence on record against the accused. The documents such as the mechanical inspection report, MLC of the victim along with the testimony to the examined witnesses are of no consequence as the same does not lay down any incriminating evidence against the accused.
Based on the above observation the Hon’ble Court held that the prosecution has failed to bring on record any incriminating evidence against the accused for the offence under Section 279 or 338 IPC despite being provided with an adequate opportunity. Similarly, on the basis of evidence on record, the testimonies of the examined witness, there is nothing to show that the accused was driving the offending vehicle without a valid driving license. Hence no offence under Section 3/181 MV Act is made out.
With regards to Section 174A IPC, the accused was declared a proclaimed offender on 27.04.1994. The offence under section 174A IPC came into force on 23.06.2006 and on such date when the accused was declared a proclaimed offender Section 174A was not introduced in the statute book, therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 174A IPC by virtue of Art.20 of the Constitution of India. The court held that no other minor provision for non-attendance in the court is made out against the accused as the same requires a complaint from the court by virtue of section 195 Cr.P.C. and no such complaint has been made in the present case.
Accordingly, the accused was acquitted for the offences under Section 279 and 338 IPC and 3/181 MV Act as there was not an ounce of incriminating evidence against the accused.
As far as the Kalandra dated 19.08.1991 is concerned the Hon’ble Court held there is nothing on record to show that cognizance of the offence under Section 5/181 MV Act was taken. The accused Jatinder Pal was never summoned to the court in Kalandra under Section 5/181 MV Act, keeping in mind that no formal order is required to take cognizance of the offence, even if it is presumed that cognizance for the offence under Section 5/181 MV Act was taken, even then the accused was never summoned as an accused. The court after considering the age of the case and the fact that accused Dharambir Singh stood acquitted, the court held there was no sufficient ground to summon the accused Jatinder Pal under Section 5/181 MV Act and therefore the proceedings under Section 5/181 MV stood quashed by virtue of the powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C.
ALSO READ- MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM CALCULATION
This post was written by Aniket Rai
For case specific advice, one may contact best/top/expert MACT ROAD RAGE RASH DRIVING Lawyer Advocate of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur
This post is written by Kaustubh Kulkarni.
More on 99888-17966.
