State vs Sanjay Gupta
2013 Latest Caselaw 2732 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+            CRL.L.P. 314/2013 and Crl.M.A. 9680/2013

                                                      Decided on 03.07.2013
IN THE MATTER OF :
STATE                                                     ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Addl. PP for State

                    versus


SANJAY GUPTA                                                ..... Respondent
                         Through: None

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI


HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

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.

4. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate has further noted that no such

public person was cited as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet that

was filed and there were material contradictions in the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses as had been pointed out by the defence counsel.

One such blatant contradiction was with regard to the width of the road

where the accident had taken place, which as per the complainant, PW-3

was about 3 to 4 feet, whereas PW-12, the Investigating Officer/Inspector

Saket Kumar(PW-12) had stated that the approximate width of the said

road was about 50 feet. Thus there is a clear disparity between the

statements of the PW-3 and PW-12. Another material irregularity as

pointed out by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the judgment is that

the information regarding the incident had been received at Police

Station: Civil Lines, which was never proved on record and on a perusal of

the copy of the DD that was placed on record, it was revealed that the

information regarding the incident was given by one, SI Ranjit of the PCR,

whereas the Investigating Officer, PW-12 had deposed that the said

information had been passed on by one, Ct. Suresh. While recording his

testimony, when a specific query was posed to the Investigating Officer in

this regard, he had given an evasive reply to the effect that the

information had initially been received from the PCR but it was handed

over to him by Ct.Suresh. The learned MM has further noted that the

constable, who had been examined as PW-10 in the case, namely, Ct.

Suresh had deposed that the DD entry was made on the information of

the PCR but, for reasons best known to the prosecution, SI Ranjit Singh of

the PCR had not been examined by the Investigating Officer throughout

the investigation.

5. The aforesaid material loopholes and anomalies in the investigation

conducted in the present case has been adversely commented upon by

the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, who has observed that the case of

the prosecution is ridden with reasonable and probable doubt, thus

arriving at the conclusion that she was not convinced that the accused

had caused the accident on 16.12.2001 by driving his vehicle in a rash

and negligent manner, that had resulted in the death of the deceased,

Shri Mahender Kumar. As a result, the respondent was acquitted in the

present case.

6. Learned Addl. PP for the State submits that while passing the

impugned judgment, the trial court had overlooked the testimony of the

sole eye witness, PW-3 and had further, disbelieved the version of the

police officers deposing before the Court.

7. Having carefully perused the impugned judgment and examined

the conclusions drawn by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on the basis

of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, this court does not find

any material irregularity, arbitrariness or perversity in the impugned

judgment which entitles the State leave to assail the same. The

impugned judgment is found to be cogent and based on a logical

appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties.

8. In view of the aforesaid observations, leave is declined to the State

to assail the impugned judgment. The petition is accordingly dismissed

alongwith the pending application.

                                                          (HIMA KOHLI)
JULY 3, 2013                                                  JUDGE
rkb/mk