IN THE COURT OF MS. BHARTI GARG, 
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE­09 SOUTH­WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI

FIR No.  33/18
Police Station            Jafarpur Kalan 
Under Section(s) 279/304A IPC 
Cr. Case no. 30473/2019
CNR no.           DLSW020448972018

IN THE MATTER OF:­

State                                                   ...........Prosecution

Vs.
Puneet Choudhary 
S/o Satender Malik
R/o K­399, Street no.8, 
Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi    ….........Accused

 
1.  Name of complainant :         ASI Om Prakash  
2.  Name of accused person : Puneet Choudhary
3.  Offences complained of : Under Sections 279/304A of 
                                                                        The Indian Penal Code, 1860 
4.  Plea of accused                      : Not guilty
5.  Date of commission of offence : 10.03.2018
6.  Date of institution of case : 17.11.2018
7.  Date of reserving judgment : 04.01.2023
8.  Date of pronouncement :         08.02.2023
9.  Final judgment : Acquitted

JUDGMENT:­

1. The present case pertains to prosecution of accused in

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.1/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
GARG Date:
2023.02.08
15:09:11 +0530
respect of offences punishable under Sections 279/304A of The
Indian   Penal   Code,   1860   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   'IPC'   for
brevity).

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of prosecution is
that on 10.03.2018 at about 10:20 pm, on the main road going
from  Jafarpur towards Ujwa Village, near the grave of  Jalalu.
Jafarpur   New   Delhi,   the   accused   was   driving   car   bearing
registration no. HR­26BA­0221 (henceforth, ‘offending vehicle’)
at high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger
human life and personal safety of others and hit one motorcycle
bearing   registration   no.HR­26BM­9662   (henceforth,   ‘damaged
vehicle’) thereby causing death of Rakesh Chauhan (hereinafter,
‘deceased’) not amounting to culpable homicide. The deceased
was rushed to RTRM hospital from where he was referred to
higher   centre,   where   he   was   declared   brought   dead.   The   IO
collected   the   MLC   of   deceased   and   got   the   FIR   registered.
During investigation, he recorded the statement of eye­witness,
prepared   the   site   plan,   seized   both   the   vehicles   and   got   them
mechanically   inspected.   The   notice   u/S   133   of   MV   Act   was
served   and   documents   of   offending   vehicle   were   seized.   The
accused   was   arrested   and   later   released   on   bail.   After   the
culmination of  investigation, chargesheet was filed against the
accused.

3. Cognizance   was   taken   of   offences   under   Sections

279/304A of IPC and accused was summoned to face trial for the
said offences. Upon his appearance, the copy of chargesheet was

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.2/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG

GARG Date:
2023.02.08
15:09:25 +0530
supplied   to   him   in   compliance   with   Section   207,   Criminal
Procedure Code (henceforth ‘Cr.P.C’).

4. On the basis of material filed along with chargesheet,
notice of accusation under Sections 279/304A of IPC was served
upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The   accused   admitted   the   genuineness   of  DD   no.29A   as   Ex.
P/A/1, FIR no.33/2018 PS Jafarpur Kalan as Ex.P/A/2, certificate
under   Section   65B   of   Indian   Evidence   Act   as   Ex.P/A/3,   DD
no.31A Ex.P/A/4, DD no.4A Ex.P/A/5, mechanical     inspection
report of damaged vehicle as Ex.P/A/6,   postmortem report as
Ex.P/A/7,   MLC   as   Ex.P/A/8,   mechanical   inspection   report   of
offending vehicle as Ex.P/A/9 and TIP proceedings of accused as
Ex.P/A/10, under Section 294 of Cr. P. C.

5. In   the   pursuit   to   prove   its   case,   the   prosecution

examined   four   witnesses   in   all.  PW1   Deepak  (eye­witness)
stated that he did not remember the date, month and year of the
incident but it was about 10:00 to 11:00 pm. When he was going
to   village   Ujwa   on   his   motorcycle   and   reached   Jafarpur,   he
observed from a distance of 200 meters that a motorcyclist going
towards   village   Ujwa   met   with   an   accident.   The   offending
vehicle was at high beam due to which he could not see its make
and   registration   number.   Thereafter,   he   got   down   from   his
motorcycle   and   he   saw   the   injured   lying   on   road   in   an
agricultural field. He called at 100 number after which the PCR
arrived   and   took   the   injured   to   RTRM   hospital.   The   police
official took his mobile number and called him on the next day.

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.3/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG

GARG Date:
2023.02.08
15:09:36 +0530
He failed to identify the offending vehicle through photographs
and the accused present in court.  As PW1 did not support the
case of prosecution on certain facts, the Ld, APP was granted
permission   to   put   him   questions   in   the   nature   of   cross­
examination,   wherein   he   was   confronted   with   his   previous
statements Mark D1 and Mark D2 and denied that the offending
vehicle bearing registration number HR­26BA­0221 being driven
rashly and negligently at high speed had hit the damaged vehicle
bearing registration no.HR­26BM­9662. In his cross­examination
by   accused,   he   admitted   that   he   reached   the   spot   after   the
accident had already taken place, but clarified that he was only
one or two seconds late. 

6. PW2 SI Om Prakash (first IO) deposed regarding the
investigation   conducted   by   him.   Upon   receiving   information
regarding the road traffic accident, he along with Ct. Kuldeep
went   to   the   spot  where   they   saw   the   deceased   and   damaged
vehicle lying in an accidental condition. He did not find any eye­
witness at the spot and took the deceased to the RTRM Hospital.
He gave a letter to CMO regarding recording of the statement of
injured  Ex.PW2/A   but   the   injured   was   declared   unfit   for
statement by the doctor. He went back to the spot and clicked
photographs thereof. He prepared tehrir Ex.PW2/B and got the
FIR registered through Ct. Kuldeep.  He then prepared the site
plan Ex.PW2/C and seized the damaged motorcycle vide seizure
memo Ex.PW2/D. Meanwhile, he received information vide DD
no.4A   that   the   deceased   had   been   declared   brought   dead   by
Venkateshwar   Hospital   after   which   he   got   his   post   mortem

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.4/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG

GARG Date:
2023.02.08
15:09:46 +0530
conducted at RTRM Hospital qua letter Ex.PW2/E. The body of
the deceased was identified by his relatives namely Vinod Singh
and Joginder  Singh vide statements  Ex.PW2/F and Ex.PW2/G
respectively. The dead body of deceased was handed over to his
relatives vide memo Ex.PW2/H. The eye­witness Deepak came
forward   in   the   case   whose   statement   was   then   recorded.   The
mechanical   inspection   of   the   damaged   vehicle   was   got
conducted. Notice u/S 133 MV Act Ex.PW2/I was served upon
the father of registered owner of offending vehicle/ accused. The
case was then sent to MACT Cell, Dwarka. He identified the spot
and motorcycle through photographs  Ex.PW1/P2 (colly).  In the
cross­examination,   PW2   stated   that   there   was   no   DD   entry
regarding his departure to the spot. 

7. PW3 Dr. Sarbjeet Kuntal  stated that on 10.03.2018,
he had examined the deceased who was in unconscious condition
and proved his MLC as Ex.P/A/8 . PW4 Inspector Ratan Singh
(second IO) deposed that during further investigation, he served
notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C upon the accused for providing
documents   of   offending   vehicle   Ex.PW4/A,   arrested   him   vide
arrest   memo   Ex.PW4/B,   recorded   his   disclosure   statement
Ex.PW4/C,   seized   the   offending   vehicle   vide   seizure   memo
Ex.PW4/D, seized the documents i.e. RC, insurance of offending
vehicle and DL of accused vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/E and
filed   an   application   for   TIP   of   accused   but   he   refused   to
participate in TIP. He got the mechanical inspection of offending
vehicle conducted and the documents of offending verified from

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.5/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG

GARG Date:
2023.02.08
the  Transport   Authority.  He released  the  offending  vehicle  on
superdari and prepared the panchnama Ex.PW4/F. In his cross­
examination, the witness stated that there was no CCTV camera
installed at the spot and the road on which the accident happened
was meant for both ways. 

8. On account of the admission made by accused under
Section 294 Cr.P.C qua the  genuineness of  DD no.29A as Ex.
P/A/1, FIR no.33/2018 PS Jafarpur Kalan as Ex.P/A/2, certificate
under   Section   65B   of   Indian   Evidence   Act   as   Ex.P/A/3,   DD
no.31A Ex.P/A/4, DD no.4A Ex.P/A/5, mechanical     inspection
report of damaged vehicle as Ex.P/A/6,   postmortem report as
Ex.P/A/7,   MLC   as   Ex.P/A/8,   mechanical   inspection   report   of
offending vehicle as Ex.P/A/9 and TIP proceedings of accused as
Ex.P/A/10,  PWs   DO/HC   Kunwar   Pal,   Dr.   Parvinder   Singh,
Chander   Prakash,   Dharmender,   Ld   MM   Manu   Goel   and   Dr.
Mani Shankar Madhav were dropped from the list of prosecution
witnesses   and   their   examination   in   that   regard   was   dispensed
with. Further, upon the request of Ld. APP, PW Ct. Kuldeep was
dropped   as   he   had   merely   accompanied   the   IO   during
investigation   and   relevant   documents   were   already   exhibited
through   IO,   and   MHC(M)   was   dropped   as   he   was   a   formal
witness. 

9. Thereafter,   the   prosecution   evidence   was   closed   and

statement of accused was recorded under Section 281 read with
313   Cr.   P.   C.   All   the   incriminating   circumstances   appearing
against him in the evidence were put to the accused. The accused

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.6/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
Date:
GARG 2023.02.08
15:10:08
denied   all   the   allegations   and   stated   that   he   has   been   falsely
implicated in the present  case.  The accused  chose not to lead
evidence in his defence. Thus, defence evidence was closed and
the matter was taken up for final arguments. 

10. It   is   argued   by   the   Ld.   APP   for   State   that   the

prosecution has been able to establish the case against accused
beyond   reasonable   doubts.   The   testimony   of   witnesses   has
remained unshaken on the point that the incident happened due to
the negligence of accused. The MLC and PM report of deceased
is also proved and there is no material discrepancy occurring in
the   prosecution   evidence.   It   is   further   corroborated   by   the
documentary evidence on record.  Therefore, it is prayed that the
accused be convicted of alleged offences.  

11. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for accused has strenuously
urged for acquittal of accused on various grounds. It is contended
that it is not established beyond all reasonable doubts that the
incident happened due to the offending vehicle. The only eye­
witness   has   not   supported   the   case   of   prosecution   and   his
testimony   is   not   worthy   of   credit.   It   is   further   submitted   that
prosecution has utterly failed to prove the ingredient of rashness
or negligence on the part of accused. 

12. Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.

13. It   is   a   paramount   tenet   of   criminal   law   that   every

accused   is   presumed   to   be   innocent   and   cannot   be   convicted
unless the prosecution is able to discharge the initial onus rested

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.7/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
Date:
GARG 2023.02.08
15:10:18
upon it beyond all reasonable doubts. The failure to do so would
necessarily   result   in   acquittal   of   accused.   It  has   been   held   by
Hon’ble   Punjab   &   Haryana   High   Court   in  Sadhu   Singh   Vs.
State of Punjab (1997) 3 RCR (Cri) 421:­

"5. In a criminal trial, it is for the prosecution to establish its
case beyond all reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to
travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the
prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the
benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused."

14. Before delving into merits, it is pertinent to give a brief
outline of offences for which the accused has been tried. Section
279 IPC proscribes the driving of vehicle on a public way in such
a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life or likely
to cause hurt or injury to any person.  Secondly,  Section 304A
makes   punishable   the   causing   of   death   due   to   such   rash   or
negligent act. In the instant case, the prosecution is required to
prove   the   following   three   points   to   bring   home   the   guilt   of
accused under the aforementioned provisions:­ (a) deceased died
as a result of collision of the offending vehicle with the damaged
vehicle  on the date of  incident,  (b)  the offending vehicle was
driven by the accused at the relevant time, and (c) the accused
was driving the offending vehicle rashly or negligently.

15. At the outset, the fact that the deceased had died in a
road traffic accident on the relevant date and time is not disputed
by   the   accused.   The   MLC   Ex.P/A/8   and   postmortem   report
Ex.P/A/7 of deceased stand duly proved in that regard. The cause
of   death   has   been   opined   in   the   postmortem   report   as   ante­
mortem injuries caused by blunt force trauma and possible due to

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.8/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG
Date:
GARG 2023.02.08
15:10:28
the accident as alleged by prosecution. 

16. Having   said   that,   the   entire   prosecution   case   now

hinges on the sole testimony of PW1 Deepak as he is the only
witness   stated   to   have   witnessed   the   incident.   However,   PW1
retracted from his previous statement and stated that he had only
seen damaged vehicle and injured lying at the spot. He could
neither   state   the   registration   number   of   offending   vehicle   nor
identify the driver thereof. He was confronted with his previous
statement wherein he had allegedly told the IO about the manner
of accident and the involvement of offending vehicle therein. He
specifically   denied   about   witnessing   the   incident.   In   fact,   he
stated in his cross­examination that he had reached at the spot
after  the accident had taken place, meaning thereby that he did
not know how the accident occurred. 

17. Besides,   the   presence   of   this   witness   at   the   spot   is

altogether   rendered   dubious,   in   as   much   as   he   stated   that   his
mobile number was taken by police when the PCR arrived, which
is blatantly contrary to the statement of IO that he did not find
any eye­witness at the spot when he reached there and took the
injured to hospital. Accordingly, the testimony of said witness
accords no support to prosecution case as far as the indictment
against   the   accused   is   concerned.   Needless   to   mention,   the
remaining   witnesses   are   of   formal   nature   as   they   had   merely
participated during the course of investigation.

18. Moreover, the disclosure statement of accused, which
largely encapsulates such facts as would amount to confession of

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.9/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG

GARG Date:
2023.02.08
15:10:38 +0530
accused before the IO, is wholly inadmissible in evidence owing
to the interdict of Section 25 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Furthermore,   although  the   mechanical   inspection   report   of   the
offending   vehicle   depicts   the   existence   of   certain   damages
thereon, however, in the absence of any other evidence, direct or
circumstantial,   on   record   to   prove   the   presence   of   offending
vehicle or the accused at the spot during the time of incident, it
assumes no significance to indicate the complicity of accused in
any manner, whatsoever. 

19. No other evidence, documentary or ocular, is brought
forth   to   establish   that   offending   vehicle   was   involved   in   the
alleged   accident   or   that   accused   was   driving   the   said   vehicle.
Now, despite the fact that the accused refused to participate in
the TIP proceedings may raise an adverse inference against him,
the absence of any substantive evidence on record to establish his
implication   in   the   instant   case   renders   such   an   inference
insufficient for the prosecution to discharge its onus of proving
the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. This is
particularly when there is no witness in the case who had seen
the accused at the time of incident.

20. Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to highlight
such   facts   on   record   which   would   show   that   the   offending
vehicle was being driven rashly or negligently. Elucidating upon
the expressions ‘criminal rashness’ and ‘criminal negligence’, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2012) 2 SCC 648 as hereinunder:­

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.10/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG

GARG Date:
2023.02.08
15:10:48 +0530
 “37. In Empress of India v. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776, Straight
J.,   explained   the   meaning   of   criminal   rashness   and   criminal
negligence in the following words:
“…criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury but without
intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably be
caused. The criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an
act   with   recklessness   or   indifference   as   to   the   consequences.
Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to
exercise that reasonable and 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   imperative   duty   of   the
accused person to have adopted.”
The above meaning of criminal rashness and criminal negligence
given by Straight, J. has been adopted consistently by this Court.”

21. In view thereof, it is clear that in order to label the rash
act of accused as criminal, it should be of such nature as would
imply   complete   recklessness   or   indifference   towards   the
hazardous   consequences   which   may   ensue,   i.e.   the   culpability
arises from acting despite consciousness. Similarly, a negligent
act would be culpable in criminal law if there has been a gross
neglect in duty of exercising reasonable care.    It has also been
held in catena of decisions that a bald averment to the effect that
accused   was   driving   in   rash   and   negligent   manner   is   not
sufficient to infer the same. The prosecution must bring on record
those   facts   explaining   the   manner   of   driving   which   would
unequivocally taint it with the colour of rashness and negligence.
Nevertheless, there is not even an iota of material to show that
the   offending   vehicle   was   being   driven   rashly   or   negligently,
apart from the account of PW1, who has not uttered even a single
word in that regard in his deposition.

22. The   upshot   of   the   foregoing   discussion   is   that

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.11/12
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG

GARG Date:
2023.02.08
15:10:58 +0530
prosecution   has   not   adduced   evidence,   both   oral   and
documentary,  of   such  formidable   nature   as  to  deduce   that  the
deceased had died due to collision with the offending vehicle or
that accused was driving the said vehicle on the date of incident.
The   manner   of   driving   the   offending   vehicle   has   not   been
elaborated in a way as to irresistibly call it rash or negligent.  The
prosecution has the bounden duty to discharge the initial onus
before it can shift on to the other party. As the basic ingredient of
rashness or negligence has not been proved by prosecution so as
to attract the offences of Sections 279/304A IPC, the inescapable
conclusion is that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.

23. Resultantly, since the prosecution has failed in proving
its   case   beyond   reasonable   doubts   against   the   accused,   the
accused  Puneet   Choudhary  S/o  Satender   Malik  R/o   K­399,
Street   no.8,  Mahipalpur   Extension,   New   Delhi  is   hereby
acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A of
The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Digitally
signed by
BHARTI BHARTI GARG
Pronounced in open court in the GARG
Date:
2023.02.08
presence of accused on 08.02.2023. 15:11:06
+0530

              (Bharti Garg)
             MM­09/South West District
             Dwarka Court/New Delhi/08.02.2023

It is certified that this judgment contains twelve pages and
each page has been signed by the undersigned.    
Digitally signed
by BHARTI
BHARTI GARG

GARG Date:
2023.02.08
15:11:13 +0530
              (Bharti Garg)
           MM­09/South West District
             Dwarka Court/New Delhi/08.02.2023

State Vs. Puneet Choudhary             CNR no. DLSW020448972018             Page no.12/12