STATE Vs. SANJAY GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Criminal Leave Petition has been filed by the State under Section 378(3) read with Section 482 of the Cr.PC against the judgment dated 16.11.2012 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts in FIR No.367/2001 lodged under Sections 279/304A IPC at Police Station: Civil Lines, whereunder, the respondent has been acquitted by the court below.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 16.12.2001, on receiving DD No.49B regarding an accident, PW-9, Ct. Chandrapal and PW-12, SI Saket Kumar had reached the place of the incident, i.e., Boulevard Road, near Barakhana Chowk, opposite Ashok Market, Delhi, where the body of an unknown male, aged 30-35 years, whose head had been badly crushed, was found. The police party found the offending vehicle, a CNG bus, parked nearby. The deceased had already expired before PW-9 and PW-12 had arrived at the spot. On reaching the spot, the respondent/accused was found and his statement was recorded. After taking cognizance of the offence, the respondent was summoned and the matter was taken to trial. The prosecution examined about thirteen witnesses and after the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded by the court under Section 313 Cr.PC, wherein he claimed that he was innocent, that he had not been driving the bus in question in a rash or negligent manner and that he had not hit the deceased, allegedly resulting in his death. Instead, it was the stand of the respondent that the body of the deceased was already lying on that stretch of the road, when he had reached and he had been falsely implicated in the case.

(3.) After examining the evidence adduced by both sides, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate had observed that as per the case set out in the charge-sheet, the accident was solely based on the statement of the eye witness, PW-3 Ct. Ramesh Chand, who was posted as a beat constable at the site of the accident on the date of the incident. The judgment noticed that even though PW-3 had deposed in his examination-in-chief that the accused was driving his vehicle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, the witness had gone on to state that he could not tell as to what was the speed of the offending vehicle. Further, he had deposed that one public person had been joined by the Investigating Officer in the investigation, but surprisingly, the Investigating Officer had contradicted the said statement and had stated in his cross-examination that he could not remember if any public witness was present at the spot. This is in the teeth of the fact that PW-9 Ct. Chandrapal, who had accompanied the Investigating Officer, had admitted in his deposition that many public persons were present at the spot on the date of the incident.