Delhi District Court
State vs Abhishek Kumar on 6 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS- 04,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Mr. Satendra Pal Singh, DJS
State Vs. Abhishek Kumar
FIR No. : 278/2008
U/s : 279/337/304A of IPC and 3/181 & 146/196 MV Act
P.S. : Shakarpur
JUDGMENT
(a) CIS No. of the case CR Cases 11834/2016
(b) Date of institution of the case 10.12.2009
(c) Date of commission of offence 11.05.2008
(d) Name of the complainant Ms. Baby Saxena
W/o Sh. Veer Singh
R/o H No. 1780, B Block,
Jahangirpuri, Delhi,
And B-73, Gali No. 1, 2nd
Floor, Majlis Park, Adarsh
Nagar, Delhi
(e) Name & address of the accused Sh. Abhishek Kumar
S/o Sh. Uma Shankar
R/o Apartment No. 2232,
ATS Homecraft Nobility,
Sector-04, Greater Noida
(f) Offence charged with 279/337/304A of IPC
3/181 & 146/196 MV Act
(g) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(h) Final order Acquittal
(i) Date when judgment was reserved 03.02.2026
(j) Date of judgment 06.05.2026
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 1 of 14 SATENDRA PAL SINGH
PAL SINGH Date:
2026.05.06
15:53:34
+0530
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 11.05.2008 at
about 10:15 AM at place near Baba Banquet Hall, on the road going
towards Laxmi Nagar flyover, Shakarpur the accused/Abhishek
Kumar drove his vehicle i.e motorcycle bearing registration number
DL 3SX 0304 so rashly and negligently as to endanger human life and
caused simple hurt to one minor child and also caused death of Memo
Devi. It also the case of the prosecution that the accused was driving
the said vehicle, at the relevant time, without valid license and without
a valid and subsisting insurance of the aforesaid vehicle. A First
Information Report (‘FIR’) under Sections 279/337/304A of the
Indian Penal Code (‘IPC‘) was registered upon the tehrir of eye
witness, Baby Saxena(PW-1). Investigation was carried out
accordingly.
2. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and accused
was summoned. Pursuant to appearance of the accused, he was
supplied with the copy of charge sheet in compliance of Section 207
Cr.P.C.
3. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the
accused and on perusal of record, prima facie case for offences
punishable under sections 279/337/304A IPC along with Section
3/181, 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act (‘MVA’) was found to be made
out against accused. Accordingly, the notice was framed against the
accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined six
witnesses: PW-1 is Baby Saxena/ complainant, PW-2 Jaya, PW-3 isDigitally
signed by
SATENDRA
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 2 of 14 SATENDRA PAL SINGH
PAL SINGH Date:
2026.05.06
15:53:43
+0530
Motor Vehicle Inspector Tasnimuddin Siddiqui, PW-4 is Veena Devi,
PW-5 is Brij Kishore and PW-6 is Inspector Santosh Kumar.
(i) PW-1 Baby Saxena deposed that on 11.05.2008 she, along
with her sister in law Jaya(PW-2), nephews Depanshu and Sahil,
had gone to Shakarpur to attend a family function at Baba
Banquet Hall, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. After dinner, PW-1 along the
her mother Memo Devi (the deceased), Jaya and nephews were
crossing the road to reach opposite side to hire conveyance. At
about 10:15 pm, when they were crossing the road, accused came
on a bike bearing number DL-3SAX-0304 at a very high speed
from the side of Mother Dairy Road (wrong side as per the
witness) and hit against her mother Memo Devi and her nephew
Sahil. That the accused was driving his motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner and caused the accident. Due to the impact,
Memo Devi and Sahil fell on the road and sustained injuries.
Accused also fell on the road alongwith his motorcycle, then he
immediately reached the injured persons and a taxi was hired and
both the injured were admitted to Walia Nursing Home. PW-1’s
mother Memo Devi died during treatment. She further deposed
that the accused ran away from the Hospital. Thereafter, police
was informed and came at the spot. She also stated that in haste
she had given incorrect registration number of the offending
vehicle in her tehrir. PW-1 correctly identified the accused in the
court. She also correctly identified the offending vehicle.
In her cross-examination by the defense, PW-1 stated
that the incident occurred while crossing the divider and that the
incident occurred at the red light. PW-1 also stated that accused
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
SATENDRA PAL SINGH
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 3 of 14 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.05.06
15:53:49
+0530
was also brought to the hospital by someone else and had run
away from the hospital.
(ii) PW-2 Jaya deposed that she along with PW-1, mother-in-law
Memo Devi, her husband Jai Bhagwan and her sons Sahil and
Depanshu, were crossing the road when accused came on a
motorcycle at very high speed riding in a rash and negligent
manner and hit against mother in law and her son, who received
injuries. The injured and the accused fell on the road. That they
immediately shifted Memo Devi to Walia Nursing Home where
she was declared dead. The accused also came to Walia Nursing
Home, She stated that she could not remember the registration
number of the motorcycle due to lapse of time.
(iii) PW-3 MVI Tasnimuddin Siddique, who conducted the
mechanical inspection of the motorcyle bearing registration
number DL-3SAX-0304, proved his report which is Ex.
PW3/A.
(iv) PW-4 Veena Devi deposed that she along with Memo Devi
(mentioned in her deposition sheet as Naina Devi, but the
deposition evident that the witness was deposing regarding
Memo Devi and the same is read accordingly), PW-2, Jai
Bhagwan, Sahil and Depanshu came out of Baba Banquet Hall
on the main road road at about 10:30/11 PM when a bike came at
high speed and hit Memo Devi, and her grandsons, Sahil and
Depanshu. All of them received injuries due to the accident. That
they immediate shifted Memo Devi to Walia Nursing Home
where she was declared dead. PW-1 called the police. PW-3
SATENDRA
PAL SINGH
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 4 of 14 Digitally signed by
SATENDRA PAL
SINGH
Date: 2026.05.06
15:53:56 +0530
identified accused in the court as the person who was driving the
offending vehicle. She further stated that she had seen the face of
the accused when he was running away from the spot after the
accident. PW-3 stated that she could not see the registration
number of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Ld. APP sought
permission to put certain leading questions to PW-3 to which the
witness stated that she had not told to the registration number to
the IO. Since she did not narrate the prosecution case in complete
terms, she was cross- examined by the learned APP, where she
denied the suggestion that she had told the registration number to
the IO.
In her cross-examination by the defense, she stated
that there was no red light at the place of the incident. She denied
the suggestion that there was a divider at the place of incident.
She voluntarily stated that Baby (PW-1) had made the call to the
police. She further stated that accused had fled away from the
spot on his motorcycle. She also stated that the accused did not
visit the hospital as he had already run away from the spot.
(v) PW-5 Brij Kishore deposed also deposed the he along with
his wife, Jaya (PW-2), Memo Devi, Sahil and Depanshu came
to the main road after attending the function. Memo Devi along
with Sahil and Depanshu was crossing the road when one bike
came in high speed and hit Memo Devi due which she fell on the
road. Thereafter, she was shifted to the hospital and then came
back home. He stated that he could not remember the registration
number of the offending vehicle. PW-5 also identified the
accused as the person riding the offending motorcycle. Ld. APP
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
SATENDRA PAL SINGH
PAL SINGH Date:
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 5 of 14 2026.05.06
15:54:03
+0530
sought permission to put certain leading questions to PW-5 to
which the witness stated that he could not tell if the accused was
driving the offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner so as
to cause the accident.
Since, he did not narrate the prosecution case in
complete terms, he was cross- examined by the learned APP as a
hostile witness, where he stated that the accused accompanied
them to the hospital when they shifted Memo Devi to the
Hospital. PW-5 further denied the suggestion that police recorded
his statement.
In his cross-examination by the defense, he admitted
that he had identified the accused present in the court because he
had attending the proceedings of the case number of times. He
further affirmed the suggestion that he had not seen the accused
at the time of the accident. He also stated that there was no divider
on the road and that there was no red light at the spot.
(vi) PW-6 Inspector Santosh Pabri, he was the IO of the case and
deposed in consonance with the chargesheet and the investigation
conducted. He stated that information about the incident was
recieved from Walia Nursing Home. Upon reaching the nursing
home it was found that Memo Devi had already expire and Sahil
had suffered blunt simple injury. In his cross examination, PW-6
stated that there is a divider at the place of incident. He also
affirmed the suggestion that there is no red light at the place of
incident.
5. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was
recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC., wherein all the incriminating evidence was
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 6 of 14 SATENDRA PAL
PAL SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.05.06
15:54:09
+0530
put to the accused, to which he stated that he had not committed any
offence and he was not driving the vehicle in question, no accident has
been caused by him and he had been falsely implicated in this case.
The accused did not wish to lead defence evidence.
6. Arguments were advanced by the Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel
for the accused. Case file perused.
7. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that from the ocular and
documentary evidence on record, the factum of rash and negligent
driving and causing death not amounting to to culpable homicide, and
other offenses that he has been charged with, has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, hence accused be convicted for the offence he has
been charged with.
8. On the contrary, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that the FIR
mentions a different vehicle number and it is only as an after thought
the accused has been implicated in the present case. It is argued that
the site plan has not been substantiated by any witness and the point
‘XA’ denotes the place of accident as the middle of the road. It is also
argued that PW-1 states that the accused ran away from the hospital
whereas PW-2 stated that the accused ran away from the place of
alleged accident and PW-4 states that the accused ran away from the
spot on his motorcycle and these accounts are mutually contradictory.
PW-1 also admitted that there is a divider on the road which was
denied by PW-4 and PW-5.
9. It is also argued on behalf of the accused that there were no skid marks
at the site of incident and that the fact whether the accused was driving
SATENDRA
PAL SINGH
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 7 of 14 Digitally signed by
SATENDRA PAL
SINGH
Date: 2026.05.06
15:54:15 +0530
at high speed remains unsubstantiated. PW-2 does not remember the
registration number and denies having told the same to IO but here
statement recorded by IO mentions the registration number, thereby
contradicting her own earlier statement.
10.It is further argued on behalf of the accused that the accused has been
falsely implicated in the case, and it is prayed that since prosecution
story is very doubtful, therefore the accused be acquitted of the
offences charged with.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES INVOLVED
11.Before dwelling into the facts of the present case, it would be apposite
to discuss the legal standards required to be met by both sides. In
criminal law, the burden of proving the guilt of the accused
exclusively lies on the prosecution which must prove the offences
charged beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, must
go in favour of the accused. There is no duty on an accused person to
purge himself of guilt.
12.To establish the offence under Section 279 IPC, the prosecution had
to prove that the accused was driving the vehicle on a public way and
that such driving was rash or negligent so as to endanger human life
or likely to cause hurt or injury. For Section 337 IPC, it had to prove
a rash or negligent act causing hurt. For Section 338 IPC, it had to
prove a rash or negligent act causing grievous hurt. For Section 304A
IPC, it had to prove that the death of the deceased was the direct result
of a rash or negligent act of the accused, not amounting to culpable
homicide.
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
SATENDRA PAL
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 8 of 14 PAL
SINGH
SINGH
Date:
2026.05.06
15:54:21
+0530
13.For Section 3 r/w 181 MVA and Section 146 r/w 196 MVA, the
prosecution must establish through positive evidence that the accused
was driving without a valid licence and without a valid and subsisting
insurance policy respectively.
14.In view of the provisions, in the present case, the prosecution was
required to establish, first, that the accident occurred in the manner
alleged. Second, that the offending vehicle was indeed the motorcycle
bearing registration number DL-3SAX-0304 and that it was involved
in the occurrence. Third, that the offending vehicle was being driven
rashly or negligently. Fourth, and most importantly, that it was the
present accused who was driving the said offending vehicle at the
relevant time.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
15.In the present case, the prosecution seeks to establish that the accused
was driving the offending vehicle and that such driving was rash and
negligent, resulting in the death of the deceased. However, upon
careful scrutiny of the evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution
has failed to establish these essential ingredients with the degree of
certainty required to establish the guilt of the accused. The testimonies
of the witnesses suffers from contradictions on crucial aspects of the
case. PW-1, in her cross-examination, admitted that the incident
occurred while crossing a divider. PW-4, however, denied that there
was any divider at the place of incident. PW-5 likewise denied the
existence of a divider. The IO, PW-6, asserted in cross-examination
that there is indeed a divider at the place of incident. Similarly, the
existence of a red light at the spot is inconsistently stated. These
contradictions are not trivial in nature but pertain to the core of the
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 9 of 14 SATENDRA PAL SINGH
PAL SINGH Date:
2026.05.06
15:54:29
+0530
prosecution story and thereby affect the credibility of the witnesses.
16. Before proceeding to deal with the aspect of site plan it is relevant to
highlight the case of Abdul Subhan v. State of NCT of Delhi 133
(2006) DLT 562 which had laid down guidelines with regard to the
investigation to be conducted in the offence of accident:
“13.1 In most cases I find that the site plans are not produced.
Even the site plan that is produced is of a very unsatisfactory
nature. It is, therefore, imperative that the investigating
officer should be provided with maps of the roads drawn to
scale so that accurate site plans can be produced in evidence
for the appreciation of courts. The exact point of impact as
well as tyre skid marks and the point at which the vehicles
come to rest after the collision should be demarcated clearly.
The observations with regard to the length of the tyre skid
marks of the vehicles involved in the impact go a long way in
indicating the speeds at which the vehicles were traveling.
This would enable the courts to examine the evidence in a
much more objective manner and the courts would not be
faced with vague and subjective expressions such as high
speed”.
“13.2. The mechanical inspection reports that are prepared are
also, I find, in a majority of cases, of a very superficial and
cursory nature. The inspection ought to be carried out by
qualified personnel who are able to indicate in their reports
the exact physical conditions of the vehicles. They should be
able to point out with exactitude the damage suffered by the
vehicles as a result of the impact. The mechanical inspection
report should indicate all the telltale signs of the collision
such as the paint of one vehicle rubbing off on the other. It
should also indicate as to whether the vehicles were
mechanically sound or not prior to the impact so as to enable
the court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision
took place due to human rashness or negligence or
mechanical failure beyond human control.
13.3. As a rule, photographs ought to be taken not only of the
vehicles involved in the collision but also of the site and
surrounding areas so that the exact topography can be easily
discerned by courts.
13.4. The prevalent weather conditions must be noted by the
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
SATENDRA PAL
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 10 of 14 PAL
SINGH
SINGH
Date:
2026.05.06
15:54:35
+0530
investigating officer. This would go to establish as to whether
the road was slippery due to rain; whether there was poor
visibility due to fog or mist etc.13.5. Furthermore, the path of movement of the
vehicles must be sought to be established in the course of
investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt
as in the present case.
13.6. The drivers of the vehicle involved must also be
subjected to tests to reveal whether they had consumed
any intoxicants.
13.7. Proper investigation of such accidents would go a long
way in aiding the criminal justice system in convicting those
who are guilty and acquitting those who are innocent. A
shoddy investigation will only point in one direction and that
is in the acquittal of all whether they are guilty or whether
they are innocent. Because, no criminal court would (and
ought not to) convict any person merely on the basis of
conjectures, assumptions, probabilities. All elements of
subjectivity need to be eliminated and the investigation
should be such that, when a charge sheet is filed, the court is
presented with a case which when taken objectively would
lead to the inescapable conclusion that a conviction is
maintainable.”
17.In the present case also the site plan Ex PW 6/B is neither scaled site
plan nor is proved by the prosecution. Furthermore, no photographs
of the surrounding sites has been taken and placed on record by IO.
There is no material to support the arguments/ allegations regarding
the speed of vehicle. It is also to be noted that PW1 has stated that
accused came from mother dairy side and stuck the deceased on the
wrong side of the road, but if we look at the site plan, it shows that if
a vehicle approaches ‘XA’ on the side from mother diary, it would not
be on the wrong side as appears from the directional arrows marked
by the IO. Furthermore, to ascertain the cause of incident, it is also
relevant to pursue the mechanical inspection report of the offending
vehicle. As per the mechanical inspection report Ex. PW3/A the
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
SATENDRA PAL SINGH
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 11 of 14 PAL SINGH Date:
2026.05.06
15:54:40
+0530
offending vehicle had sustained following damages:
(i) Front head light scratched
(ii) Left head light wiser scratched
(iii) Left side leg guard bent/scratched
(iv) Brakes oil
18.The mechanical inspection report mentions only scratches on the
headlight and wiser. There are no photographs to show whether the
scratches and damage was in regular course of wear or was caused by
an impact of accident. As laid down in Abdul Subhan (supra), the
mechanical inspection should report the exact physical condition of
the vehicle and should point out with exactitude the damage suffered
by the vehicle as a result of the impact. The mechanical inspection
report should also indicate all the territorial sites of the collision so as
to enable the court to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the collision
took place due to human rashness or negligence. The mechanical
inspection report in the present case fails on the above standards.
19.The identity of the accused as the driver of the offending vehicle is
not free from doubt. Although PW-1 and PW-4 have identified the
accused in court, the reliability of such identification is weakened by
the surrounding circumstances. PW-1 admittedly furnished an
incorrect registration number in her initial complaint, which raises a
serious doubt regarding her observation and recollection at the time of
the incident. PW-2 was unable to recall the registration number
altogether. More significantly, PW-5, who was projected as an eye-
witness, categorically admitted during cross-examination that he had
not seen the accused at the time of the accident and identified him only
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
SATENDRA PAL
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 12 of 14 PAL
SINGH
SINGH
Date:
2026.05.06
15:54:46
+0530
because he had seen him during court proceedings. Such an admission
strikes at the root of the prosecution case insofar as identification is
concerned.
20.PW-2 is the sister-in-law of PW-1. She did not specifically depose in
terms of identifying the accused as the driver at the scene in the same
manner as PW-1 and PW-4. More importantly, a material
contradiction emerges from her testimony on the issue of the
registration number, she deposed in court that she does not remember
the registration number and denied having told it to the IO. However,
her statement recorded by the IO during investigation contains the
registration number. This is a direct contradiction between her court
testimony and her prior statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Under the law, her prior statement can be used only to contradict her,
not as substantive evidence. However, this contradiction reflects
poorly on the reliability of her testimony as a whole.
21.With respect to the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act, the
prosecution has not led cogent documentary evidence to prove that the
accused was driving without a valid licence or that the vehicle was
uninsured.
22.The prosecution has also failed to conclusively establish that the
accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving on the part of the
accused. The allegation of “high speed” has been made in general
terms without any supporting material. There is no independent
witness, no scientific evidence such as skid marks, and no other
objective indicator of rashness or negligence. It is well settled that
mere speed, without more, does not necessarily constitute rash or
SATENDRA
PAL SINGH
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 13 of 14
Digitally signed by
SATENDRA PAL
SINGH
Date: 2026.05.06
15:54:53 +0530
negligent driving. The mechanical inspection report does not advance
the prosecution case on this aspect.
23.Further, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses are riddled with
material contradictions. There are conflicting versions regarding
whether the accused fled from the spot or from the hospital, whether
he accompanied the injured to the hospital, and whether there existed
a divider or traffic signal at the place of occurrence.
CONCLUSION
24.In view of the discussion made herein above and considering the facts
and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The
accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused
Abhishek Kumar is hereby acquitted of all the charges framed against
him under Sections 279, 337, 304A IPC and Sections 3/181, 146/196
of the Motor Vehicles Act.
25.Copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost.
Pronounced in the open court ( Satendra Pal Singh)
on 6th Day of May 2026 JMFC-04/East/KKD Court
This judgment contains 14 pages and each and every page of this judgment
is signed by undersigned.
(Satendra Pal Singh)
JMFC-04/East/KKD Court
06.05.2026
Digitally
signed by
SATENDRA
SATENDRA PAL SINGH
PAL
FIR No. 278/2008 State Vs. Abhishek Kumar Page no. 14 of 14 SINGH Date:
2026.05.06
15:55:00
+0530
