Delhi District Court
State vs Rajiv Kumar on 6 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST
CLASS-02, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI PRESIDED
BY: SH. ANMOL NOHRIA, DJS
STATE Vs. RAJIV KUMAR
FIR NO. : 265/2011, u/S 279/337/338/304A IPC
PS : NEW USMANPUR
CNR NO. DLNE020001802011
- : JUDGMENT :-
A. CIS No. of the Case : 461778/2015
B. FIR No. : 265/2011
C. Date of Institution : 08.12.2011
D. Date of Commission of : 21.07.2011
Offence
E. Name of the complainant : Sahalam @ Monu S/o Siraj
F. Name of the Accused, his : Rajiv Kumar S/o Sardar
Parentage & Addresses Singh R/o Village and Post
Office Lohari, PS Baraut,
District Baghpat, UP.
G. Offence complained of : u/S 279/337/338/304A IPC
H. Offence charged with : u/S 279/337/338/304A IPC
I. Representation on behalf of : Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Ld.
State APP
J. Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
K. Order reserved on : 27.02.2026
Digitally
L. Date of Order : 06.04.2026 signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:24:49
+0530
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 1 of 39
M. Final Order : Convicted under section
279/337/338/304A IPC.
Brief Statement Of Reasons For Decision Of The Case :-
1.
Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on
21.07.201 after receiving DD No.22, regarding an accident at
Shastri Park Red Light, GT Road, ASI Kafil Ahmed alongwith
Ct. Shri Bhagwan and photographer Ct. Sunil went to the spot
wherein he seen the pieces of glasses and huge amount of blood
lying on the road and photographer/Ct. Sunil obtained the
photographs of the spot. On inquiry, it was found that PCR van
took the injured to GTB Hospital. ASI Kafil alongwith Ct. Sunil
and Ct. Shri Bhagwan went to GTB Hospital where it was found
that one injured was brought dead and other injured/Vijay (aged
30 years) and one more injured/Shah Alam (aged 13 years) and
recorded their statement wherein injured Shah Alam stated that
he was standing the Shastri Park Red Light road towards Bus
Stands and at about 04:45 pm, one bus bearing no. UP 11T 1892
coming towards Seelampur which was being driven in a rash and
negligent manner and on high speed and hit him and one
motorcycle no. DL 7SZ 3078 which was standing there and its
owner and another person who were standing due to which they
sustained grievous injuries. Public persons gathered at the spot
and after seeing the public, driver of offending bus ran away
from the spot. Someone called at 100 number. Police reached at Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
the spot and took them to GTB hospital. On the basis of the ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:24:56
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 2 of 39
complaint, the present FIR was registered and the accused was
produced by the deppo manager Baraut, UP of the bus during the
investigation. It is alleged that the incident occurred due to rash
and negligent of the driver namely Rajiv Kumar and the accused
was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section
279/337/338/304A IPC.
2. FIR was registered and has been investigated by the
officials of Police Station New Usmanpur and IO/ASI Kafil
Ahmed filed the charge sheet against the accused upon which
cognizance was taken on 08.12.2011 by the learned Predecessor
of this Court.
3. Accused appeared before the Court and copy of
charge-sheet along with other documents under Section 207
Cr.P.C. was supplied to him.
4. Charge was framed vide order dated 25.05.2013 for
the offence punishable Under Section 279/337/338/304A of the
IPC against accused by the learned Predecessor of this Court, to
which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral
and documentary evidence against the accused to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt :-
Digitally signed
by NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
Date:
ANMOL 2026.04.06
16:25:02
+0530
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 3 of 39
ORAL EVIDENCE
Master Shah Alam
PW1
(complainant)
PW2 : Vijay Kumar (eye witness)
Bijender Kumar (brother of
PW3 :
deceased Naresh Kumar)
Gulshan Kumar (father of
PW4 :
deceased)
HC Sunil Kumar (police
PW5 :
witness)
PW6 : ASI Jagpal (police witness)
PW7 : Asif Ali (public witness)
PW7A : Ct. Jitender (police witness)
Retired ASI Narain Singh
PW8 :
(duty officer)
Ct. Shri Bhagwan (police
PW9 :
witness)
Retd. SI Manohar Lal Dhyani
PW10 :
(mechanical inspector)
Retd. SI Madan Pal (police
PW11 :
witness)
ASI Mahendra Prasad (police
PW12 :
witness)
ASI Om Prakash (police
PW13 :
witness)
Rajender Pal Singh (superdar
PW14 :
of the offending vehicle)
Manoj Kumar Trivedi (public
PW15 :
witness)
PW16 : Dr. Parmeshwar Ram (doctor)
Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
PW17 : Dr. Amit Srivastava (doctor) ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:25:10
+0530
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 4 of 39
PW18 : Retd. SI Kafil Ahmad (IO)
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex. PW1/A : Statement of complainant
Ex. P1 to Ex.
: Photographs of motorcycle
P4
Ex. PW3/A &
: Identification memo
Ex. PW4/A
Ex. P5 to Ex.
: Photographs of bus
P7
Ex. P8 to Ex.
: Photographs of spot
P12
Ex. P13 to
: Photographs of dead body
Ex. P16
Ex. PW6/A &
: Seizure memo
Ex. PW6/B
Ex. PW7/A : Arrest memo
Ex. PW7/B : Personal search memo
Ex. PW7/C : Seizure memo
Ex. PW8/A : DD no. 28A
Ex. PW8/B : Endorsement
Ex. PW8/C : FIR
Ex. PW8/A : Mechanical inspection report
Ex. PW8/A & Mechanical inspection report
:
Ex. PW8/B of motorcycle
Ex. PW12/A : DD number 22
Ex. PW14/A : Seizure memo
Ex. PW14/B : Superdarinama
Ex. PW16/A,
Ex. PW16/B Digitally signed
: MLC by NOHRIA
& Ex. NOHRIA ANMOL
Date:
ANMOL 2026.04.06
PW16/C 16:25:18
+0530
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 5 of 39
Ex. PW18/A : Tehrir
Ex. PW18/B : Site Plan
Ex. PW18/C : Request of postmortem
Ex. PW18/D : Notice u/S 133 M. V. Act
Ex. PW18/E : Duty Slip
Ex. PW18/F : Disclosure
Ex. PW18/G : PMR
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS
Ex. X1 : TIP
Ex. X2 : PM Report
Ex. X3 : X-ray report
Ex. X4 : MLC result
6. Master Shah Alam @ Monu (PW1) is the
complainant in the present matter, who has deposed an oath that
at the time of incident, he was 13 years old and he was coming
back from the school and started watching Kawad and at that
time, he saw a bus bearing no. UP11 1892 was coming in a high
speed and bus was being driven in the rash and negligent manner.
At that time, he was standing at the red light of Shastri Park and
to save himself, he tried to ran away, but his legs slipped and he
fell down. He further deposed that the offending vehicle ran over
some persons out of which one person died and other person lost
his legs. The incident happened at about 05:00 pm. The bus also
collided against one motorcycle. He further deposed that at the
Digitally
time of incident, he used to study in 6th class and he was
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
studying in 8th class. He correctly identified the accused during
16:25:26
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 6 of 39
his deposition in the court.
6.1. Ld. APP for the State put a question to Master
Shah Alam @ Monu (PW1) to explain material facts, that how
the accused was rash and negligent in driving the bus wherein he
stated that “isne na break maari na kuch and sidha chalata aa
gaya and logo ko thokta chala gaya”.
6.2 Ld. APP for the State asked some leading
question from Master Shah Alam @ Monu (PW1) wherein he
admitted that after the accident, he was removed to the hospital
where he was got medical treatment. He proved his statement
Ex. PW1/A. He correctly identified the photographs of
motorcycle. He admitted that he was also hit by the offending
vehicle and received injuries.
6.3 In cross examination, Master Shah Alam @
Monu (PW1) he has deposed that he was conscious after
accident. He saw the accused for the first time before the
accident inside the bus when he was driving the bus. Questioned
put by the Court that when did he see the bus from the first time
and from what distance and from which directions it was coming,
upon which he deposed that he saw the bus for the first time for a
distance of about 20 feet for the first time and the bus was Digitally
signed by
NOHRIAcoming from the same side from where the Kawad were coming. NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:25:33
+0530
He deposed that he was at a distance of about 15 feet from theFIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 7 of 39
red light. The bus did not come from the side of the red light. He
saw the accused after the incident in the court during his
deposition. He deposed that he had given statement to the police.
He was not taken by the police officials to the spot of the
accident after the accident. He denied the formal suggestions put
to him.
7. Vijay Kumar (PW2) is the injured in the present
matter, who has deposed an oath that on 21.07.2011, he was
standing on the side of road some distance ahead of near Shastri
Park red light. There he was waiting for the auto-rickshaw. At
about 04:30 to 04:45 pm, a UP roadways bus bearing no. UP
Roadways T 1892 came in a high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner. By rash and negligent manner, he mean that
bus was being driven beyond the control of driver and the driver
was driving the same in a zig-zag manner and the driver hit
against three persons including him who were standing on the
side of the road. One motorcycle which was also standing on the
side of the road also came under the effect of the accident and
same was being hit by the bus. He also got carried/swayed
alongwith the bus. The said vehicle was being driven by the
accused and he had noticed that the accused while he was driving
the bus. After the accident when the bus stopped, he remained
entangled in the bus and when the public came accused ran away Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
by leaving the bus at the spot. Public brought him out while he NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL
Date:
2026.04.06
was entangled to the bus. Somebody from the public made a call 16:25:40
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 8 of 39
to the police and he was removed to the GTB hospital by the
PCR van. The statement was also recorded by the police He
correctly identified the photographs of the motorcycle and
accused during his deposition in the court.
7.1. In cross examination Vijay Kumar (PW2) by
counsel for the accused he has deposed that he was standing 20
steps ahead of the Shastri Park red light. It was red signal when
the accused hit them. The accused had jumped the red light when
the accident happened. He has not mentioned the factum of
jumping the red light when the accident happened. I has not
mentioned the factum of jumping the red light by the accused in
his statement given tot he police. He was standing ont he road
going towards the ISBT. Other vehicles apart from the offending
vehicle were also plying on the road. When he got hit by the bus,
he was facing the bus. He was conscious and oriented after the
accident. He was removed from the body of the bus within 2-3
minutes by the public. First time, he has seen the accused at the
time of accident and thereafter, he has seen him in the court
during his deposition in the court. Upon court question that when
did he first see the accused, he deposed that he first saw the
accused when he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of
accident. He admitted that the MACT claim case is also pending
and he has been the accused during the proceedings of MACT Digitally
signed bycase also. He denied the suggestion that he has seen the accused NOHRIA
NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
for the first time during the proceedings of MACT case. He again 16:25:46
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 9 of 39
deposed that he has seen him for the first time at the time of
accident when he was driving the offending vehicle. He was
never taken to the place of accident by the police after the
accident. He was never called by the police at the police station
to identify the accused. His statement was recorded on one
occasion only by the police and it was recorded on the day of
incident only in his presence and statement of no other witness
was recorded. He denied the suggestion that the accident did not
occur by the UP roadways bus and it was caused by DTC bus.
8. ASI Jagpal (PW6) is the first IO in the present
case and he deposed on oath that on 21.07.2011, he was posted at
PS New Usmanpur as HC. On that day, on receipt of DD no. 28A
regarding accident, he alongwith Ct. Subodh went to Shastri Park
Chowk, where motorcycle bearing no. DL 7SZ 3078, Hero
Honda and DTC bus again said UP registration number UP 11P
1892 were standing in accidental condition. The glass of bus was
broken and blood was also scattered at the spot. Aforesaid bus
and motorcycle were sent to PS. It was revealed that injured was
already taken to hospital. He was to GTB hospital where he
collected the MLC of injured who has been declared brought
dead. He informed to MACT cell regarding the accident. IO
alongwith the staff came at the GTB hospital and he gave the
MLC to the IO. He alongwith IO came at the spot and at the spot,
Digitally
Shah Alam, his brother Nisar met at the spot and IO prepared the signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOLsite plan at the instance of Shah Alam. He alongwith IO went to ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:25:53
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 10 of 39
the PS where he handed over aforesaid motorcycle bearing DL 7
SZ 3078, Hero Honda and bus bearing no. UP 11P 1892. He
correctly identified the accused and the photographs of the
motorcycle during his deposition in the court.
8.1. In cross examination ASI Jagpal (PW6) by
counsel for the accused he has deposed that he had received DD
no. 28A at about 05:16 pm. When he received the DD, he read it.
He admitted that in the DD 28A, it was mentioned DTC bus. IO
was called at about 06:00 pm. The motorcycle and bus were sent
to PS at about 05:30 pm. IO reached at the spot at about 07:00
pm. He did not meet Shah Alam at the hospital. He against
deposed that he met Shah Alam at the spot at 07:00 pm.
Statement of Shah Alam was recorded at the spot by the IO. He
left the spot after handing over MLC to the IO. He finally left the
spot at about 074:15 pm. He went back to the PS from the spot.
IO met him and recorded his statement on 22.07.2011. He denied
the formal suggestions put to him.
9. Asif Ali (PW7) was the eye witness of the incident
and he deposed that on 21.07.2011 he was working as Mechanic
at the shop of his name and the name of his shop is India Auto
Service. On that day, he was present at his shop then at about
05.30 p.m., one motorcycle which was black colour make of Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
Hero Honda was standing. In the meantime, one bus of UP NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:25:59
+0530roadways came from the side of Seelampur and the driver of the
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 11 of 39
bus was driving the bus at very fast speed in rash and negligent
manner and hit the motorcycle and motorcyclist alongwith two
other persons sustained injury. The offending bus driver hit the
motorcyclist from behind. He did not remember the registration
number of the offending bus. He deposed that somebody called at
100 number and police official came at the spot. Police officials
took the injured person hospital. He correctly identified the
accused during his deposition in the court.
9.1 Ld. APP for the State put leading question from
Asif Ali (PW7) wherein he admitted that the registration number
of offending bus was UP 11T 1892. He has correctly identified
the photographs of motorcycle during his deposition in the court.
9.2. In his cross examination, Asif Ali (PW7) deposed
that he remained at the spot by 07.00 p.m. Police came at the spot
and met him on 23.07.2011. Police met him in the afternoon at
his shop. He did not know the registration number of motorcycle
at the time of his evidence. He did not know the name of the
injured persons. Police has not stated the name of the injured
person. He had seen the accused driver at the spot and he had
fled after deboarding from the bus. He denied the suggestion that
he is identifying the accused driver at the instance of police
officials. Police officials has not read over his statement to him. Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
He denied the suggestion that accident was caused by DTC bus NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL
Date:
2026.04.06
16:26:06
and not by the UP roadways bus. He denied the formal +0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 12 of 39
suggestions put to him.
10. Retd. SI Madan Pal (PW11) was the police
witness who deposed on oath that on 27.07.2011, he was posted
as SI at PS Bhajanpur, North Zone PCR. On that day, he was on
patrolling duty in the area of Usmanpur, Delhi. On that day, his
duty hours were 09:00 AM to 09:00 PM. On that day, he received
a call from control room at 04:45 PM regarding the accident took
place at Shastri Park Red Light. When he reached at the spot, he
found accident took place between the UP Roadways bus and the
motorcycle and three injured GTB persons were also lying at the
spot. One person was unconscious and he took him to GTB
Hospital. After admitted him at GTB, he was declared dead by
the doctors. Other injured persons were taken to the hospital by
the Backup 41 (police van) in the GTB Hospital. Thereafter, IO
recorded his statement in this regard. He correctly identify the 16
photographs of the place of incident, as well as vehicles and
injured persons during his deposition in the court. He also
correctly identify the photographs of the motorcycle, photograph
of the bus, photographs of the spot and photographs of dead body
during his deposition.
10.1 In his cross examination, Retd. SI Madan Pal
(PW11) deposed that the registration number of roadways bus is
Digitally
signed by
UP-11-T-1892. He deposed that he did not tell the IO about the NOHRIA
NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
aforesaid number of the bus while recording statement U/s 161 16:26:12
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 13 of 39
Cr.P.C as IO did not ask him about the same. He denied the
formal suggestion put to him.
11. Superdar Rajender Pal Singh (PW14) was the
superdar of the offending vehicle who deposed on oath that on
2011, the day of incident, he was working Senior clerk at UP
Roadways, Baraut Depot. District Baghpat UP. The ARM of the
depot. had informed him about the accident upon which present
case got registered and he was authorized by ARM for the
production of the relevant documents of offending vehicle
bearing no. UP 11 T-1892. After one/ two days of registration of
FIR he visited at the concerned PS along with the document
which consist of RC, Photocopy of Driving license of driver,
Fitness certificate and Duty slip and handed over same to the IO.
He also got released the offending vehicle on superdariginama
upon the instruction of ARM. Police had not recorded his
statement at PS.
11.1 Rajender Pal Singh (PW14) was not cross
examined by Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity given to
him.
12. Retd. SI Kafil Ahmad (PW18) was the IO in the
present case and he deposed on oath that on 21.07.2011, he was
Digitally
signed by
posted as ASI in the office of MACT Cell, NE District and on the NOHRIA
NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
said date, he received DD No. 22 pertaining to the death of 2026.04.06
16:26:19
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 14 of 39
injured after which he alongwith Ct. Shri Bhagwan and Ct. Sunil
(photographer) went to the spot i.e. Shastri Park, Red Light, GT
Road wherein he had seen the pieces of glasses and huge amount
of blood lying on the road. Ct. Sunil obtained the photographs of
the spot on his instruction. After that, he alongwith both the
constables further proceeded for the GTB Hospital wherein he
collected the MLC of injured on which doctor had mentioned
brought dead and other MLC of person namely Vijay and one
more MLC of person namely Shah Alam. He met with HC
Jagpal/PS New Usmanpur who had stated that the accidental bus
no. UP11T1892 and one motorcycle make Hero Honda no.
DL7SZ3078 were taken to PS New Usmanpur from the spot.
Thereafter, he recorded the statement of Shah Alam / injured in
the hospital upon which tehrir was recorded by him after which
the same was handed over to Ct. Shri Bhagwan who took the
same to the PS at about 08:45 pm to get the FIR registered.
Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Sunil and HC Jagpal came at the
spot and after some times Shah Alam also came at the spot and
he prepared the site plan at his instance. Meanwhile, Ct. Shri
Bhagwan also came at the spot and handed over him the original
tehrir and copy of FIR. He then, went to PS New Usmanpur
alongwith the staff wherein he had seized both the vehicles. On
the next day, the dead both the deceased/Naresh was handed over
to his relatives after conducting of postmortem. Thereafter, he
came back to the MACT Cell wherein he met with the Rajender Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
Pal to whom he served the notice u/s 133 MV Act and on dt. ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:26:27
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 15 of 39
01.08.2011 Rajender Pal had brought reply of the said notice and
the same day Rajender Pal handed over him the duty slip which
shows the name of driver as Rajiv Kumar (accused) and also
handed over him the RC and fitness certificate of the offending
vehicle which he seized then and there itself. On 04.8.2011,
accused Rajiv Kumar had surrendered by his own before the
Court concerned and he arrested and personally searched the
accused. He also recorded the disclosure statement of accused.
Accused had produced his driving license which he seized. On
the same day, he filed the application before the Court concerned
for conducting of TIP which was refused by the accused.
Accused was granted bail on same day by the Court. After that,
he collected the PM report of the deceased and annexed the same
with the present charge sheet. He also obtained the result of final
result of the MLCs of Shah Alam and Vijay the doctor had
opined the injury as simple in the MLC of Shah Alam and
grievous in MLC of Vijay. Thereafter, section 338 IPC was also
added by him in the charge sheet. He recorded the statement of
witnesses accordingly on the same day of seizing both the
vehicle, the mechanical inspection was also conducted by him.
He correctly identified the accused during his deposition in the
court. He also correctly identify the photographs Ex.P1 to
Ex.P16.
Digitally
signed by
12.1 In his cross examination, Retd. SI Kafil Ahmad NOHRIA
NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
(PW18) deposed that he received DD No. 22 at around 06:25 pm
16:26:34
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 16 of 39
and reached the spot at around 06:50 pm. He did not take any
sample of the glass or the blood that was on the spot. He reached
GTB Hospital at around 07:15 pm and met HC Jagpal as soon as
he reached the hospital. HC Jagpal handed over DD No. 28 A to
him at the PS after coming back at around 11-12.00 midnight. He
recorded the statement of Shah Alam at around 07.30 pm. He did
not record the statement of any other person at hospital on the
same day, however, he recorded the statement of injured Vijay at
the hospital. He did not remember whether he recorded the
statement of the PCR caller or not. He deposed that he reached at
the spot from the hospital at around 10:30 pm and Shah Alam
also reached the spot after discharged at around 11:00 pm. He
denied the suggestion that Shah Alam never reached the spot
after discharge. They stayed at the spot till around 12:30 am. He
sent the rukka from the hospital at around 08:45 pm and FIR was
received at the spot between 11:00 pm to 12:00 am. He reached
the PS after 12:30 am. He had read DD No. 28 A handed over by
HC Jagpal. He has shown DD NO. 28 A Ex.PW8/A as per which
accident had taken place with DTC bus and he deposed that at
that time, there was accident of no other bus but of the offending
vehicle which was vehicle of UP Roadways. He had not made
any paper to show that offending vehicle was not a DTC bus but
UP Roadways. He denied the suggestion that no such paper was
made as no such accident was occurred with UP Roadways bus.
He denied the suggestion that he had shown the accused to the
Digitally
signed by
complainant before his surrender on 30.07.2011 when his NOHRIA
NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:26:40
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 17 of 39
application was listed and was adjourned for 04.08.2011 and for
the same reason, the accused refused TIP. He again deposed that
the accused was not arrested before 04.08.2011 as he had already
told the Court that injured Vijay and Shah Alam were not in a
condition to identify the accused or participate in the TIP because
of his injury. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely
qua the health of injured persons with respect to TIP as he has
already stated that Shah Alam had come to the spot on the day of
incident after discharge. He again deposed that Shah Alam lives
near the spot and was brought to the spot by his brother. He
denied all other formal suggestion put to him.
13. The remaining prosecution witness supported the
case of the prosecution and proved the documents mentioned in
the Table above.
14. PE was closed on 06.01.2026 and thereafter, before
the start of defence evidence, in order to allow the accused to
personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in
evidence against him, the statement of the accused was recorded
without oath under Section 281 read with Section 313 CrPC.
He stated that he has been falsely implicated and not committed
the offence as alleged and denied the allegations in toto. Pursuant
thereto, he stated that he does not wish to lead any defence
evidence. Digitally signed
by NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
Date:
ANMOL 2026.04.06
16:26:46
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 18 of 39
15. I have heard the learned APP for the State and
learned counsel for the accused at length. I have also have given
my thoughtful consideration to the material appearing on record.
16. It has been argued by the learned APP for the State
that all the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present
case. She has argued that the complainant/ eye witnesses/injured
have supported the case of prosecution and the other evidence
like mechanical inspection also points towards the commission of
offence by the accused. Other documents like MLC and PMR
also prove the essential ingredients of the offence. As such, it is
prayed that the accused be punished for the said offence.
17. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused has
argued that the State has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. He has argued that the prosecution has failed to
prove that the basic essentials of the offence. It is further
submitted that the original vehicle does not correspond with the
original DD of the accident and there exists lot of contradictions
between the testimonies of the injured. It is submitted that neither
rashness nor negligence of the accused is proved on record. As
such, it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the said
offence. Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
18. This Court has thoughtfully considered the material 16:26:53
+0530
on record and arguments advanced with due circumspection.
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 19 of 39
19. In Ras Bihari Singh v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 12290, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed that:
“7. At the outset, before delving into merits
of the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties, I find deem it
appropriate to discuss the relevant Section
involved in the instant case. The petitioner
has been convicted and sentenced for the
offences punishable under Section 279 and
304A IPC.
8. Section 279 IPC deals with rash and
negligent driving, which reads as under:
S. 279. Rash driving or riding on a public
way- Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides,
on any public way in a manner so rash or
negligent as to endanger human life, or to
be likely to cause hurt or injury to any
other person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to six months, or
with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both”
9. To constitute an offence under Section
279 IPC, it must be shown that the person
was driving the vehicle in a rash or
negligent manner. Criminal negligence or
criminal rashness is an important element
of the offence under Section 279 IPC.
10. Section 304A reads as under:
“304A. Causing death by negligence.–
Whoever causes the death of any person by
doing any rash or negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide, shall be
Digitally signed
by NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOLpunished with imprisonment of either ANMOL
Date:
2026.04.06
16:26:59
description for a term which may extend to +0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 20 of 39
two years, or with fine, or with both.”
11. In a road accident case, to convict a
person for the offence punishable under
Section 304-A IPC, the prosecution is
required to bring on record the basic
requirement of the said Section i.e. “Rash
or Negligent Act” with following
conditions:
1) There must be death of the person in
question;
2) that the accused must have caused such
death; and
3) that such act of the accused was rash or
negligent and that it did not amount to
culpable homicide.”
20. In Rathnashalvan vs. State of Karnataka : AIR
2007 SC 1064, the Apex Court observed that:
“5. Section 304A applies to cases where
there is no intention to cause death and no
knowledge that the act done in all
probability will cause death. The provision
is directed at offences outside the range of
Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision
applies only to such acts which are rash
and negligent and are directly cause of
death of another person. Negligence and
rashness are essential elements under
Section 304A. Culpable negligence lies in
the failure to exercise reasonable and
proper care and the extent of its
reasonableness will always depend upon
the circumstances of each case. Rashness
means doing an act with the consciousness Digitally
signed by
NOHRIAof a risk that evil consequences will follow NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL
Date:
2026.04.06
but with the hope that it will not. 16:27:04
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 21 of 39
Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by
law. In criminal cases, the amount and
degree of negligence are determining
factors. A question whether the accused’s
conduct amounted to culpable rashness or
negligence depends directly on the
question as to what is the amount of care
and circumspection which a prudent and
reasonable man would consider it to be
sufficient considering all the
circumstances of the case. Criminal
rashness means hazarding a dangerous or
wanton act with the knowledge that it is
dangerous or wanton and the further
knowledge that it may cause injury but
done without any intention to cause injury
or knowledge that it would probably be
caused.
6. As noted above, “Rashness” consists in
hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
the knowledge that it is so, and that it may
cause injury. The criminality lies in such a
case in running the risk of doing such an
act with recklessness or indifference as to
the consequences. Criminal negligence on
the other hand, 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.
13. Section 304A which deals with
unintentional death caused by doing any
Digitally signed
by NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
rash or negligent act of the offender. The ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:27:10 +0530
applicability of this Section is limited toFIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 22 of 39
rash or negligent acts which cause death
but fall short of culpable homicide
amounting to murder or culpable homicide
not amounting to murder. To bring an
offence within the ambit of Section 304A,
the prosecution is required to bring on
record that the act was done by an accused
and the death was caused due to rash and
negligent act.
21. The essential ingredients which the Prosecution is
required to prove to establish the guilt of accused beyond
reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC
are as under :
“a) The accused was driving the offending
vehicle;
b) On a public way;
c) In a manner so rash and negligent so as
to endanger human life, or to be likely to
cause hurt/injury to any other person.”
22. Further, for offence punishable under Section 304A
IPC, the Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt
that by aforesaid rash and negligent driving, the accused caused
death of the victim not amounting to culpable homicide.
23. In other words, to seek conviction of the accused
under the charged Sections, cogent evidence has to be led to
establish “rashness”/”negligence” on the part of the accused.
Digitally signed
“A rash act is primarily and over-hasty act NOHRIA
by NOHRIA
ANMOL
Date:
and is thus opposed to a deliberate act, but ANMOL 2026.04.06
16:27:17
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 23 of 39
it also includes an act which, though it
may be said to be deliberate, is yet done
without due deliberation and caution. In
rashness the criminality lies in running the
risk of doing an act with recklessness or
indifference to consequences.” (Page no.
321 Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, The Indian
Penal Code 28th Edition Reprint 2002).
Further, a negligent act “involves
blameworthy heedlessness on the part of
the accused which a normal prudent man
exercising reasonable care and caution
ought to avoid”. (Page no. 322 Ratan Lal
& Dhiraj Lal, The Indian Penal Code 28th
Edition Reprint 2002). Either of these
ingredients have to be proved by
affirmative evidence and cannot be
presumed res ipsa loquitur. Reliance is
placed upon State of Karnataka Vs. Satish
(1998) 8SCC 493″
24. The Prosecution also has to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the direct and proximate cause of death of
the victim was the rash and negligent driving by the accused.
25. The identity of the accused as the driver of the
offending vehicle also has to be cogently established beyond
reasonable doubts.
26. Before proceeding for the examination of the
Digitally
signed by
offence reference to the judgment of Balu Sudam Khalde vs. NOHRIA
NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
State of Maharashtra, Crl. Appeal No.1910 of 2010. The 16:27:24
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 24 of 39
division bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has enunciated that the
testimony of an injured eye witness cannot be doubted unless
there are material contradictions in his deposition. The evidence
of injured eye witness has greater evidentiary value and unless
compelling reasons exists their testimony cannot be discard
lightly.
27. Thus, now this Court proceeds to appreciate the
evidence brought on record by the Prosecution.
Re: Identity of the accused
28. In order to establish the identity of accused qua the
accident in question i.e. to establish that it was the accused who
was driving the offending vehicle on the date, time and place of
the alleged accident, the prosecution has examined witnesses i.e.
the injured/eye witness as PW1, PW2 and PW7 and also
employees of UP roadways i.e. PW14 and PW15.
29. PW1/Master Shah Alam had witnessed the accident
in question and is also one of the injured as he was standing at
the spot of the incident and was hit by the offending vehicle
during the incident and was naturally present at the relevant date
and time on the spot. During his examination-in-chief, PW-1 Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
correctly identified the accused as the driver of the vehicle in NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:27:32
question at the time of the alleged accident when shown through +0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 25 of 39
video conferencing. In his cross examination, he has narrated that
he was conscious after the incident and has seen the accused for
the first time before the accident inside the bus when the accused
was driving. Further, in his cross examination he has answered
affirmative that he was shown the accused before deposing in the
court so as to identify him in the court, however he has denied
the suggestion that he has seen the accused for the first time in
the court and has been tutored to identify him. Considering the
age of the witness which is about 15 years, the answer by him
does not amount to any material contradiction on the aspect of
identity as he has clearly explained the circumstances in which
he had seen the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle.
30. PW2/ Vijay Kumar is also one of the injured in the
accident and thus a natural witness of the same. He has duly
identified the accused present in the court and has stated that he
had noticed the accused while accused was driving the bus and
also in his cross examination he has clarified that he had seen the
accused for the first time while he was driving the offending
vehicle at the time of accident and thereafter he has only seen the
accused in the court.
31. PW7/Asif Ali is shop owner at the spot of incident
and has duly identified the accused present in the court by
Digitally
pointing his finger towards the accused and in his cross
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
examination has clarified that he has seen the accused as driver at
2026.04.06
16:27:39
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 26 of 39
the spot and when the accused was deboarding the bus to flee
from the spot. He has also denied the fact that he is relative of
one of the injured.
32. PW14/Rajinder Pal Singh was the senior clerk at UP
Roadways in the year 2011 and has deposed that he was
authorized by the ARM for production of record with respect to
offending vehicle and he has handed over the RC, photocopy of
DL of driver, fitness certificate and duty slip to the IO which
were seized by memo Ex. PW14/A.
33. PW15/Manoj Kumar Trivedi is ARM of UP
Roadways but has denied giving reply to notice u/s 133 MV Act
and has turned hostile.
34. The gist of the testimonies of PW14 and PW15 is
that they are only witnesses of the fact that accused was driving
the offending vehicle and they have produced record regarding
the same to the IO, though PW15 has denied reply to notice u/s
133 MV Act, however PW14 has duly acted upon the direction of
PW15 and as such record used by PW14 cannot be ignored
specially when he has duly identified by the accused present in
the Court.
Digitally
signed by
35. Perusal of record produced by PW14 to the IO NOHRIA NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:27:45
includes the original duty slip wherein the name of the accused is +0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 27 of 39
mentioned as driver of the offending vehicle for duty on
20.07.2011 with assign the trip of 1048 km.
36. It has been argued for the accused that the PW1 and
PW2 have seen the accused when he had filed application for
surrendered and thus they are identifying the accused based upon
the same. However, perusal of testimony of IO/PW18 shows that
he has clarified that on the said day i.e. 30.07.2011 the PW1 and
PW2 were not in a condition to identify the accused and hence
could not participate in the TIP. Further, no such question have
been put by the accused to PW1 and PW2 question has been put
that he has seen the accused in MACT proceedings, which itself
is contrary to the submission of the accused. Hence, the said
submission does not hold water with this court and PW1 and
PW2 have already clarified the identification in their respective
testimonies.
37. In view of the above, the prosecution has
successfully established that it was the accused that was driving
the vehicle in question on the date, time and place of the alleged
accident.
Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
Re: Identity of the offending vehicle ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:27:52
+0530
38. The case of the prosecution is that on the relevant
date, time and place, the accused was driving a vehicle / tempo
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 28 of 39
bearing no. UP 11T 1892. The accused did not dispute the
identity of the offending vehicle during the testimony of PW1,
PW2 and PW7 who are the eye witnesses and its photographs
have been duly proved by the witness PW5/HC Sunil Kumar as
the photographer as Ex.P5 to Ex.P7 being the photographs
clicked by him. Further, the identity of the offending vehicle was
also not disputed during the testimony of PW6/ASI Jagpal who
had took the offending vehicle at the spot to the PS. Further,
PW11/SI Madan Pal who was the first responder has also duly
identify the offending vehicle in the photographs Ex. P5 to Ex.
P7 and the identity of the vehicle was also not disputed during
the testimony of PW18/IO.
39. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that the
initial DD with respect to the accident bearing no. 28A does not
mention the offending vehicle to be of UP Roadways but that of
DTC. However clarification regarding the same have been given
by PW6 and also PW1 and PW2 who are the natural witnesses
alongwith PW7 who is the eye witness have duly told the bus to
be that of UP Roadways. Further, since the identity of the vehicle
has not been disputed during the majority of the trial, the
involvement of vehicle bearing no. UP 11T 1892 in the accident
in question stands established.
Digitally signed
by NOHRIA
Re: Manner in which offending vehicle was being driven NOHRIA ANMOL
Date:
ANMOL 2026.04.06
16:27:59
+0530
40. The identity of the accused as well as the vehicle
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 29 of 39
bearing No. UP 11T 1892 qua the alleged accident having been
established by the prosecution, what remains to be proved by the
prosecution is that the accused was driving the offending vehicle
in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or
personal safety of others or likely to cause hurt to any other
person.
41. PW1/Master Shah Alam is one of the injured in the
present case. No question or even a suggestion has been put to
PW1 in his cross-examination disputing his presence at the spot
at the time of the alleged accident. PW1 has very categorically
stated in his deposition before the court that the accused was
driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and
at high speed, he has further explained the rashness as “isne na
break mari na kuch and sidha chalata aa gaya and logo ko
thokta chala gya” and thereafter ran over some persons in which
one person died and other person lost his leg and bus also
collided against one motorcycle.
42. PW2/Vijay Kumar is also an injured in the present
matter and no question qua his presence has been put to him by
the accused. He has categorically stated that the offending
vehicle came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner
and by rash and negligent manner he mean that bus was being Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
driven beyond the control of the driver and driver was driving the 2026.04.06
16:28:06
+0530same in a zig-zag manner and hit three persons including him
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 30 of 39
who were standing on the road and one motorcycle was also hit
and he got carried/swayed alongwith the bus and remained
untangled when the bus came to the stop.
43. PW7/Asif Ali is a eye witness in the present matter
as he is one of the shop owner and has categorically deposed that
the bus was being driven at a very fast speed in a rash and
negligent manner and hit motorcycle and the motorcyclist
alongwith two other persons who sustained injuries and the
offending vehicle hit the motorcycle from behind. Though in his
cross examination, he has stated that he does not remember the
registration number of the said motorcycle, however he has
categorically stated in his examination in chief the make and
colour of the same and has identified the photographs of the
offending vehicle Ex. P1 to Ex. P4.
44. Though, there are certain contradiction in the
testimony of PW1 with regards to the location of the incident and
same does not correspond with the site plan Ex. PW18/B,
however considering the age of the witness, the said
contradiction can be ignored specially when the other witnesses
have duly proved the spot of incident.
45. The testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW7 are Digitally signed
by NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
completely found reliable and sufficient for proving the ANMOL
Date:
2026.04.06
16:28:12
+0530
commission of offence by the accused. There is nothing onFIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 31 of 39
record rule out the facts deposed by PW1, PW2 and PW7.
Further, I do not find any reason for the PW1, PW2 and PW7 to
make such kinds of false allegations against the accused.
46. I would like to refer to Kalu @ Amit and Ors. Vs
State’ (Criminal Appeal no.868/2008, Supreme Court) wherein
it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that it is well settled that
conviction can be raised on the evidence of a sole eye witness if
its evidence inspires confidence and in that case, the witness had
meticulously narrated the accident and supported the prosecution
case and therefore, he was found to be a reliable witness.
47. Having found the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW7
to be worthy of reliance, what remains to be adjudicated is
whether the manner of driving of the offending vehicle by the
accused as described by PW1, PW2 and PW7 satisfies the
requirement of Section 279 I.P.C. The requirement of Section 279
I.P.C. is that the vehicle was being driven by the accused in a
manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or
personal safety of others or likely to cause hurt to any other
person.
48. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled S. N. Hussain
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 685′ has held as
under:-
Digitally
signed by“The criminality lies in such a case in NOHRIA
NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:28:20
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 32 of 39
running the risk of doing such an act with
recklessness or indifference as to the
consequences. Criminal negligence on the
other hand, 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…….
……….Culpable negligence lies in the
failure to exercise reasonable and proper
care and the extent of its reasonableness
will always depend upon the circumstances
of each case…..”.
49. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
paragraph 9 of Mohammed Aynuddin v. State of Andhra
Pradesh‘, (2000) 7 SCC 72 held:
“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 Digitallydriver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOLand proper care and precaution.” ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:28:26
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 33 of 39
50. PW1, PW2 and PW7 have categorically described
the manner in which the rashness and negligence was being done
by the accused and same has already been discussed above. Also,
it is noteworthy that PW1 has categorically stated that on the day
of incident there was kawad and he was watching the same which
itself shows that road was having traffic on that day which again
imposes a duty of care on the driver which he has not shown why
driving the vehicle in zig zag manner or at a fast speed as
narrated by aforementioned witnesses.
51. Further, the mechanical inspection reports of both
the vehicle Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B alongwith testimony of
PW8 reveal that the offending vehicle/bus in question apart from
other damages also sustained damages on front left side and its
head light was broken and the rear body and other part at the rear
of the motorcycle had received fresh damage. This clearly
indicates that the front side of the offending vehicle had hit the
back side of the motorcycle in question and is duly in
corroboration with the testimony of PW7.
52. Perusal of the site plan shows that offending vehicle
was moving from the red light towards ISBT and the accident
had taken place on the left side of the road in the moving
direction of the road which is again in corroboration with the Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
testimony of the witnesses and also as per the testimony of PW2 NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:28:32he got carried away/swayed alongwith the bus and remained +0530
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 34 of 39
entangle in the bus and was rescued by public persons.
53. In view of the discussion above, it is established that
the offending vehicle was being driven at a high speed specially
during the heavy traffic season of kawad and the accused/driver
did not bother to follow lane discipline despite being driver of a
public transport bus and was driving the same in a zig zag
manner. A driver must anticipate reasonably foreseeable
negligent act of road users and must drive according to the same
and the rashness and negligence is dependent upon the
circumstances of the case which are to determined based upon
the facts. Accordingly, in view of the discussion above, the
prosecution has been able to established that the accused was
driving the vehicle on the day of incident rashly and negligently.
54. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses
including the injured and eye witnesses are completely found
reliable and sufficient for proving the commission of offence by
the accused. There is nothing on record to rule out the facts
deposed by the victim. It is well settled law that it is not the
quantity but it is the quality of the testimony that weighs upon
the consideration of the Court. Section 134 of the Evidence Act
stipulates that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case
be required for the proof of any fact. In State of Maharashtra Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
Vs. Suresh Nivsutti, 1997 2 Crimes 257 (Bom)’, it was observed NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:28:39that the time honoured rule of appreciating evidence is that it has
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 35 of 39
to be weighed and not counted.
55. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court,
the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that at the
relevant time the offending vehicle was being driven by the
accused in a manner, which was so rash and negligent as to
endanger human life, or personal safety of others or to cause hurt
to any other person. Therefore, the third ingredient to bring home
the guilt of the accused under Section 279 I.P.C. has been proved
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
56. To prove the charges under the section 304A IPC,
the prosecution had to prove that the death of the victim has been
caused by the accused due to his negligent act. The negligent act
of the accused has already been proved. What remains to be
proved that the death of the victim was happened due to the
accident. It has been earlier noted by testimony of PW1 that one
person died due to the said accident and one person lost his legs.
According to the MLC Ex. PW16/A filed by the doctors, the
deceased was brought to the hospital on the day of incident at
around 05:40 pm and was unconscious and his pulse could not be
detected and was declared brought dead in casualty. As per the
death summery/PMR Ex. X2 filed by the doctors, there were
injuries present from the abdomen, forehead, arms knees and Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
thighs of the deceased and his head had suffered injuries and NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL
Date:
2026.04.06
16:28:47apparent cause of death being antimortem injuries to the head
+0530FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 36 of 39
produced by blunt force impact as a result of the accident. No
other reason have been attributed by the defence for the death of
the victim. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of
prosecution. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable that
death of the victim was caused due to the accident. The rash and
negligent of the accused has already been discussed and
prosecution has successfully proved the same. Therefore, there is
enough evidence on record to hold the accused guilty of offence
U/s 304A IPC.
57. The prosecution has also charged the accused u/S
337/338 IPC for causing simple injuries to Shah Alam and
grievous injuries to Vijay by driving the offending vehicle in rash
and negligent manner.
58. To prove the charges under the section 337/338 IPC,
the prosecution had to prove that the injury to the victim has been
caused by the accused due to his negligent act. The negligent act
of the accused has already been proved. What remains to be
proved that the injury to the victim has happened due to the
accident. It has been earlier noted by testimony of PW1 that
when the offending vehicle came towards him he slipped and fell
down and offending vehicle thereafter ran over some persons.
Further, it has also been observed in the testimony of PW2 that Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
he was hit by the bus and remained entangle in the bus and was NOHRIA
ANMOL
ANMOL
Date:
2026.04.06
16:28:53rescued by the public persons. There presence at the spot has +0530
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 37 of 39
been duly proved. According to the MLC of PW1 i.e. Ex.
PW16/C he suffered injuries on right arm and left side and X-ray
of left leg ankle and right foot was also prescribed by the doctors
and had come to the hospital with history of road side accident
and after the same opinion of simple injuries was given.
59. Further, perusal of MLC of PW2 which is Ex.
PW16/6 shows that he had gone to the hospital with the history
of road side accident and had suffered abrasion at left side of
chest and on his forehead as well as swelling in his right leg and
also had injuries in his forehead; he was prescribed X-ray by the
doctors and also referred to surgery and thereafter opinion was
given by the doctors that the injury is grievous in nature. Upon
his X-ray slip opinion is given that fracture was found in his right
leg.
60. No other reasons have been attributed by the defence
for the injury to PW1 or PW2. Thus, there is no reason to
disbelieve the version of prosecution. The prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable that injuries to the victims were caused due to
the accident. The rash and negligent of the accused has already
been discussed and prosecution has successfully proved the
same. Therefore, there is enough evidence on record to hold the
accused guilty of offence u/S 337/338 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:29:01
+0530
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 38 of 39
61. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the
prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt
that the direct and proximate cause of death of the victim and
injuries to PW1 and PW2 was the rash and negligent driving of
the accused, therefore, accused Rajiv Kumar S/o Sardar Singh
is found guilty for offence punishable under section
279/304A/337/338 IPC in the present case and resultantly, he
stands convicted for those offences.
62. This judgment contains 39 pages. This judgment has
been signed and pronounced by the undersigned in open court.
63. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the
official website of District Courts, Karkardooma forthwith and a
copy be supplied to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance.
Digitally signed
by NOHRIA
NOHRIA ANMOL
ANMOL Date:
2026.04.06
16:29:13 +0530
Announced in the open (ANMOL NOHRIA)
Court on 06th April, 2026 JMFC-02/NE/KKD COURTS
FIR No. 265/2011 State vs. Rajiv Kumar PS New Usmanpur Page No. 39 of 39
