Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rash and Negligen Driving
Rash and Negligen Driving
State
Vs.
Shiv Kumar, S/o Sh. Gewar Chand,
R/o Gali No. 3, Sanjay Nagar, Bayawar,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
Date of institution of case
25.01.2005
24.05.2016
07.06.2016
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case:
336/2/01.12.08
11.08.2004
25.01.2005
Shiv Kumar
279/304A IPC
7. Plea of Accused:
Not Guilty
8. Final Order:
Acquitted
07.06.2016
1 of 8
on
PE
2 of 8
PW-2 Sh. Madhav Rao Mishra and PW-3 Sh. Jitender have
deposed that on 11.08.04 they had gone to DDU Hospital Mortuary and
had identified the dead body of Adesh Kumar (deceased). Both of them
proved their signatures on their statements which are Ex.PW2/A and
Ex.PW3/A respectively.
PW-4 Const. Lekhraj has deposed that he had gone to the spot on
receiving a call from DO for arranging a photographer for taking
photographs of the spot. That he had taken the photographer to the spot
where he met IO, accused Shiv Kumar and Const. Kailash. PW4 narrated
on the lines of prosecution story.
FIR No. 625/04
PS Tilak Nagar
3 of 8
PW-5 Sh. Suraj Kumar is the only eye witness who has been
examined by the prosecution in the present matter. PW5 has narrated on
the lines of prosecution story, however, he stated in his examination in
chief that he cannot say as to whose negligence the accident had taken
place. PW5 has deposed in his examination in chief that on 11.08.2004 at
about 8.00 am, when he reached in front of his shop, he saw Avdesh
Kumar coming towards the shop on a cycle and that when Avdesh Kumar
reached in front of the shop, a tempo bearing registration No.
DL1LC-4741 struck against the cycle pulled by Avdesh Kumar. That due
to the impact of the accident, the tempo ran over the head of Avdesh
Kumar, i.e. the front tyre ran over Avdesh Kumar. That Avdesh Kumar
expired at the spot. That after causing the accident tempo driver managed
to stop the tempo and in the meantime public persons managed to
apprehend accused as accused was trying to escape. That he cannot say as
to whose negligence the accident had taken place.
Ld. APP sought permission to cross examine the witness
which was given. In his cross examination by Ld. APP, PW1 admitted the
suggestions given by Ld. APP.
4 of 8
5 of 8
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. To prove the case against the accused the prosecution was obliged to
prove the following ingredients:
--the accused was driving the offending vehicle;
--in a rash or negligent manner;
-- caused death of cyclist Aadesh Kumar;
-- death was direct consequence of the rash or negligent driving.
9. The Apex Court has defined rashness/negligence in Mohammed
6 of 8
The said eye witness is PW-5 Sh. Suraj Kumar on whose testimony the
prosecution case hinges upon. PW-5 narrated on the lines of prosecution
story in his examination-in-chief, but, he stated that he cannot say on
whose negligence the accident in question took place. As a result of
which, he was cross-examined by Ld. APP but the same is of no help to
the prosecution. Although, PW5 admitted the suggestions given to him by
Ld. APP, however, the facts stated by him in his examination in chief have
confused the mind of the Court with respect to the rashness or negligence
on the part of accused while driving the offending vehicle.
11. PW-5 is the main star witness of the prosecution. However, the
testimony of PW-5 is too scanty to prove guilt of accused. It cannot be
relied upon without any corroboration which is none in the present case.
The complicity of accused could have been proved by the ocular evidence
or circumstantial evidence. The ocular witness as well as the
circumstantial evidence is insufficient to infer the guilt of accused. It is
well settled law that to convict the accused on circumstantial evidence,
there must be complete chain of events pointing towards the guilt of
accused and nothing else.
12. The evidence apparent on record is insufficient for basing the
conviction for the accused. The benefit of doubt goes in favour of the
accused and he is entitled to be exonerated. The burden to prove the case
beyond reasonable doubt lies on the shoulder of the prosecution. Every
accused is to be presumed innocent until proved guilty. The accused
cannot be convicted on the basis of mere probabilities or presumptions.
FIR No. 625/04
PS Tilak Nagar
7 of 8
279/304A IPC and in the present case. Bail bonds u/s 437A of Cr.PC is to
be furnished which would remain valid for a period of six months.
(SUSHIL KUMAR)
Metropolitan Magistrate
West-05, Delhi
8 of 8