JUDGEMENT WRITING IN CRIMINAL CASES

1. Description of party etc.

2. Against whom under what sections and by which PS charge-sheet has been
submitted?
3. Facts according to FIR and prosecution.
4. Charges framed under what sections?
5. Prosecution evidence, specifically mentioned what papers have been proved by
which witness?
6. Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
7. Whether defence evidence given?
8. Heard arguments?
9. What prosecution has to establish?
10. FIR- promptness-Delay-If delay evidence to explain delay, also discussed here
written report, if any, check and GD, Circumstances of Crime-Circumstances
causing delay such as – Fear, Injury, Threatening, Medical Treatment, Incident
took place in night etc. Give finding whether prompt or delayed and if delayed,
delay has been explained or not? Also discuss argument of parties.
11. Place of occurrence.
Cite plan-Statement of IO and Witnesses with regards to place of occurrence.
Give finding whether place of occurrence established or not? Also discuss
argument of parties.
12. Medical evidence in injury case.
Reproduce medical report with reference to statement of Doctor or if genuineness
has been admitted. Discuss opinion of Doctor as to nature of injury, time and
duration, weapon used. Give finding whether injury could have been sustained at
the relevant time in relevant manner. Also discuss argument of parties.
13. Cumulative finding on the basis of above formal evidence.
14. Whether accused committed the offence or not?
Analyze the statement of fact witnesses.
Appreciate the credibility of witnesses with reference to relationship, enmity,
neutrality, opportunity to be present at the time of incident.
Whether injured witness, independent witness, hostile witness, appreciate when
and where incident took place with reference to the facts whether possibility of
independent witness or not? Also discuss argument of parties.
15. Discuss with reference to S.34 or 149 of IPC?
16. Discuss defence version and evidence, if any?
17. On the basis of above discussion give brief conclusion for conviction or acquittal.
18. Whether prosecution established case beyond shadow of any doubt or not?
19. Operative portion, if acquittal, and if conviction accused to be taken in custody for
hearing on sentence.
20. Hearing on sentence.
21. Sentence.

NOTE : Refer to arguments of parties on above mentioned points where they have taken
by you and refer to relevant case-laws on those points.

1
 IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJESH GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
*****

FIR No. 730195

Under Section 279 and 304A IPC
P. S. Rajottri Garden .

(a) Computer ID number of the case: 1102401R02550

(b) Date of commission of the offence: 27.09.1995
(c) The name of the complainant: HC Mahender Pal
(d) The name of the accused person, his parentage and residence: Jitender Kumar
S/o Sh. Charan Singh, R/o Village Surnanpur, P. S. Khekhra,District, Meerut
(UP).
(e) The offence complained of: Under Section 279 and 304A IPC
(f) The plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order: Convicted
(h) The date of such order: 16.08.2019
Challan was filed on: 17.02.1996
Final arguments were advanced on:07.08.2019
Judgment is announced on:16.08.2019
FIR No. 730/95 PS Rajouri Garden Page 1 of 9

JUDGMENT

Brief Facts: It is the case of prosecution that on 27.09.1995 at 9.10 AM at Raja Garden
Chowk, Najafgarh Raod, near Police Post, accused Jitender Kumar was driving a
vehicle i.e. Red Line Bus bearing No. DL1P2848. in rashness and negligent manner and
while driving so, he hit an unknown pedestrian resulting into his death. The matter was
registered and after completing investigation, the final report was filed for the offences
under Section 279 and 304A IPC.

2. On appearance of the accused person, a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for
the offences under Section 279 and 304A 1PC was served upon him to which he
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

DEPOSITION OF PROSECUTION'S WITNESSES

3. PWI Kanwaljeet Singh being registered owner-of the offending vehicle proved the
reply of notice u/s 133 MV Act as Ex. PW I/A. PW2 AS! Manju being duty officer
proved the FIR as Ex. PW2/A. PW3 Dr. I. J. Kalra proved the MLC of injured as
Ex. PW3/A. FIR No. 730/95 PS Rajouri Garden Page 2 of 9.

4. PW4 1-IC Mahinder Pal is the eye witness. He deposed that on 27.09.1994 at
about 9:10 am, he was standing outside a booth along with Ct. Amir Singh. He
saw that one man came from the side of Punjabi Bagh after crossing the road
going towards Raja Garden. A bus bearing No. DL1P2848 Red Line came from
the side of Najafgarh driven by the accused in a high speed and rash and

2
 negligence manner and he without seeing the light started crossing the chowk in
which the man who was crossing the chowk was hit by the above said.bus driven
by the accused and caused his death. His statement was recorded by the 10
(which is Ex. PW4/A). The PW4 proved the site plan prepared at his instance
as.Ex. PW4/B, seizure memo of the offending Bus as Ex. PW4/C, DD No. 5A
regarding the above said incident as EX. PW4/D. The accused was arrested and
his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW4/E.

5. PW5 SI Naseeb Singh is the Investigating Officei-

(I0). He deposed that on 27.09.1995 on receiving of DD no.5A, he along with Ct.
Kishori Lal reached accidental site i.e. Chowk of Raja Garden. One red line bus
No. DL113 2848 found in an accidental condition. The injured was already shifted
to the DDU Hospital. He left Ct. Kishori Lal at the spot and went to the DDU
hospital where he collected MLC of one unknown injured declared "brought
dead". He returned to the spot where HC
FIR No.730/95 PS Rajouri Garden Page 3 of 9
Mahinder Singh, lncharge of Picket got his statement recorded.
(I.O. further deposed about preparation of rukka, registration of case, seizure of
bus, conducting of post mortem of deceased, serving of notice to the owner u/s
133 of M.V. Act, arrest of accused, preparation of site plan, etc.).

6. PW6 Dr. God proved the postmortem report as Ex.PW6/A. PW7 IIC Kishori Lal is
the accompanying police official to 1.0. He deposed in the lines of PW5 SI
Naseeb Singh.

DEFENCE OF THE ACCUSED

7. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all
incriminating evidence put to him and took a defence that his bus was standing
on the road as it broke down there and no accident took place from his Bus and
he was falsely implicated in this case. Accused examined one witness in his
defence.

8. 1Sh. Dev Dutt deposed that on 27.09.1995 at about 9.309.45 AM, he was going
to his office in Kirti Nagar by bus from Vikaspuri. He had boarded on Bus route
No. 871 having registration No. DL1P2848. At Raja Garden, the bus broke down.
Driver got them boarded on another Bus of same
FIR No. 730/95 PS Rajouri Garden Page 4 of 9
` route. He did not know anything else.

9. I have heard Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and counsel for the
accused. File perused.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REASONS FOR DECISION

10. In order to prove the alleged offences, the prosecution is required to prove the
following essential points:

(i) The identify of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle and that
accident took place from this bus; and
(ii) Rashness and negligence on the part of the accused in causing death of
the deceased.
IDENTITY OF ACCUSED

3
11. In the statement under Section 313 Cr. P. C., the accused admitted that he was
the driver o the offending vehicle but he took a specific defence that the accident
did not take plac, from his bus. The accused also examined one DWI Sh. Dev
Dutt who stated that he wa: . one of the passengers of the Bus of the accused on
the day of incident and he did not se( any accident occurred with his Bus on that
day. FIR No. 730/95 PS Rajouri Garden Page 5 of 9

12. The counsel for the accused argued that no TIP of accused was conducted in the
present case. In his cross examination, the 10, SI Naseeb Singh clearly
explained that no TIP of accused was conducted as the accused was identified
by the eye witness. Moreover it is a settled preposition of law that pretrial TIP is
only corroborative evidence and the substantial evidence is the identity of the
accused in court. The accused has been correctly identified by the eye witness
(PW4) and the 10 (PW5) and in view of following specific evidence, I hold that
non conducting of TIP is not fatal to the case of prosecution.

13. The prosecution examined total 7 witnesses and most important of them is PW4
IIC Mahender Pal who is the eye witness of the incident. PW4 specifically
deposed that he had seen the accused while driving the bus and just after
causing the incident, the accused stopped the bus and fled away from the spot.
The bus was seized by the 10 from the spot itself. The prosecution examined
PW1 Sh. Kamaljit Singh who is the owner of the bus. PW I admitted receiving_ of
notice under Section 133 MV Act and his reply. He also deposed in court that
accused was driving the offending bus on the date of incident. The accused was
also identified by PW1 in court. Even 10 also identified the accused. In view of
above evidence, there is no doubt that accused was not the driver of the
offending bus from which the
FIR No.730/95 PS Rajouri Garden Page 6 of 9
accident took place.

14. Now the crucial question is whether the incident occurred from the said bus or
not. It is the defence of the accused that accident did not take place from his bus
and accordingly a specific court question was put to the accused to the effect
whether he made any complaint to police for his alleged false implication to which
he replied negatively. The DWI also admitted in his cross examination that he
does not remember the registration number of the second bus on which he was
boarded by the accused. But he disclosed the complete registration number of
the offending bus and this fact shows that he was tutored by the accused and as
such his statement is not reliable. Moreover, the bus was seized from the place of
occurrence of incident and the accused did not give any explanation as to why he
was not available there. The .accused has not led any evidence to elicit as to on
what account the bus broke down, as alleged by him. On the other hand, in the
mechanical inspection report (Ex. PW5/1-1), it is pointed out that the bus was in
working order. Under these circumstances, I hold that the accident was caused
by the offending Bus which was being driven by accused.

4
 ELEMENTS OF RASHNESS AND NEGLIGENCE
FIR No.730/95 PS Rajouri Garden Page 7 of 9
15. Out of 7 witnesses examined by prosecution, PW4 HC Mahender Pal is the eye
witness. He, clearly deposed that accused was driving his bus by jumping the red
light in a high speed and rash and negligent manner. It is further stated by PW4
that accused hit his bus against a pedestrian who was crossing the road while
there was a green signal for him. Despite cross examination of PW1, nothing
contrary came on record.

16. In the case-of Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs. State of Andhra Pradesh on
28 July, 2000, it was observed by the HOn'ble Supreme Court of India that —"A
rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a 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."

17. In the present case, there is no explanation from the side of driver of the bus
rather he chose to take a defence that FIR No. 730/95 PS Rajouri Garden Page 8
of 9 accident did not take place from his bus which has already been disbelieved
above. Being driver of a commercial bus, it was the imperative duty of the
accused to take care of all the passengers on the bus as well as all other persons
and vehicles on the road but the accused failed to take such care and caution
and consequently one pedestrian died. In view of above observation and the
evidence on record, I hold that the accused was driving his bus in rash and
negligence manner.

18. No dispute is raised as regards the death of the deceased. Nevertheless, the two
doctors, namely, PW3 and PW6 proved the MLC and postmortem report of the
deceased on record. From the nature of injuries sustained by him, it is clear that
his death was the result of road accident.

19. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, I hold
that the prosecution succeeded in proving the essential ingredients of the alleged
offences against the accused. Accordingly accused is convicted for the offences
u/s 279 and 304A IPC.
Announced in the open court on 16.08.2019

Announced in the open court

On 16.08.2019
(Rajesh Gupta)
Metropolitan Magistrate)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi