Delhi District Court
State vs Anil Kumar Singh on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF JMFC-05,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Ankur Panghal, DJS
Cr. Case No. -: 3293/2018
CNR No. -: DLWT020064042018
FIR No. -: 258/2017
Police Station -: Anand Parbat
Section(s) -: 279 IPC & 185 MV Act
In the matter of -
STATE
VS.
ANIL KUMAR SINGH
S/o Sh. Dev Nandan Singh
R/o G-147/5, Gyatri Colony,
Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar,
Anand Parbat, Delhi.
Permanent Address: Village Mundera Bugurg,
PO Sonu Gath, District Deoria, Uttar Pradesh.
.... Accused Person
1. Name of Complainant :- Sunil
2. Name of Accused :- Anil Kumar Singh
Person
3. Offence complained of :- 279 IPC & 185 MV Act
or proved
4. Plea of accused person :- Not Guilty
5. Date of Commission of :- 06.08.2017
offence
6. Date of Filing of case :- 11.05.2018
7. Date of Reserving Order :- 10.02.2026
8. Date of Pronouncement :- 18.04.2026
9. Final Order :- Acquitted U/s 185 MV Act
Convicted U/s 279 IPC
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:12:47 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 1 of 29
Argued by -: Ms. Arunima Goel, Ld. APP for the State.
Ms. Suman Satyarthy, Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution against the
accused is that on 06.08.2015, at about 6:00 PM, the complainant
namely Sunil had parked his motorcycle bearing No. DL-1S-
AB-0238 (Splendor) in front of his house and at about 8:30 AM,
he saw that the driver of a small dumper bearing No.
DL-1LP-7551, while driving his dumper in a very rash and
negligent manner, struck his above-mentioned motorcycle, as a
result of which his motorcycle bearing No. DL-1S-AB-0238 got
damaged. It is further alleged that upon checking the motorcycle,
the handle, rear-side crash guard, and leg guard were found
damaged and the complainant immediately stopped the dumper
vehicle and apprehended the dumper driver, whose name
ascertained later on inquiry was found to be Anil Kumar and he
was handed over along with the said dumper to the police. It is
further case of prosecution at the above-mentioned time and
place the accused was in a drunker state. As such, it is alleged
that the accused committed the offence punishable under section
279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, “IPC“) and 185
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, “MV Act“), for
which an FIR No. 258/2017 was registered at Police Station
Anand Parbat.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:12:56 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 2 of 29
INVESTIGAION AND APPEARANCE OF ACCUSED
2. After registration of FIR, the investigating officer
(hereinafter ‘IO’) conducted investigation and on culmination of
the same, chargesheet against the present accused was filed.
After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused was
summoned to face trial. The accused appeared in court and he
was supplied the copies of documents relied upon in the charge
sheet in terms of section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter, “Cr.P.C“).
3. On a finding a prima facie case against the accused
Anil Kumar Singh, a charge was framed for the offences
punishable U/s 279 IPC & 185 MV Act against the accused on
12.07.2019. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. During the trial, prosecution led the following oral
and documentary evidence against the accused person to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: –
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW1 :- Arvinder Singh (Mechanical Expert)
PW2 :- Jatin Lamba (Registered owner of vehicle
bearing no. DL1LP-7551)
PW3 :- Sunil (Complainant)
PW4 :- HC Dhirender (Accompanied IO at the
spot)
PW5 :- Kalu (Eye Witness)
PW6 :- Retd. SI Om Prakash (IO)Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:13:01 +0530Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 3 of 29
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCEEx. PW1/A :- Mechanical inspection reports of vehicles
& Ex. bearing no. DL1LP-7551 and
PW1/B DL1SAB-0238
Ex.PW2/A :- Reply of PW2/Jatin Lamba of the notice
U/s 133 MV Act
Ex. PW 2/B :- Superdarinama of vehicle no. DL1LP-7551Ex. P1 – P4 :- Four Photographs of vehicle bearing no.
DL1LP-7551
Ex. PW3/A :- Complaint filed by complainant
Ex. PW3/B :- Seizure memo of motorcycle of
complainant
Ex. PW3/C :- Arrest memo of accused
Ex. PW3/D :- Personal search memo of accused
Ex. P-5 :- Five photographs of motorcycle
(Colly)
Ex. PW4/A :- Seizure memo of vehicle no. DL1LP-7551
Ex. PW4/B :- Seizure memo of documents of the vehicle
& Ex.
PW4/C
Ex. PW4/D :- Seizure memo of DL of accused
Ex. PW6/A :- Rukka
Ex. PW6/B :- Site Plan
ADMITTED DOCUMENTS (under S. 294 CrPC)
Ex. AD-1 :- FIR along with certificate U/s 65 B of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Ex. AD-2 :- Endorsement on rukka
Ex. AD-3 :- DD No. 18 B dated 06.08.2017
5. During the course of trial PW-1 Sh. Arvinder Singh
was examined on 24.12.2019. In his examination in chief, he has
stated that he is qualified Grade Mechanic and he has done
specialized courses in automobile and vehicle mechanic from ITI
in Auto Mobile and various vehicles manufacturing companies. ANKUR
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:13:09 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 4 of 29
He further deposed that till today he has mechanically inspected
more than 6-7 thousand vehicles. PW1 further deposed that on
09.08.2017, he mechanically inspected two vehicles No.
DLILP-7551 (Tata truck) and motorcycle (Splendor) No.
DLISAB-0238 at the request of ASI Om Prakash from PS Anand
Parbat and his detailed mechanical inspection reports in this
regard are Ex.PWI/A and Ex.PW1/B. PW1 further deposed that
as per his inspection report, the Tata truck was fit for road test
but the motorcycle was/not lit for road test.
5.1. PW-1 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused and he deposed that he had mechanically
inspected the above said vehicles in the premises of PS Anand
Parbat and it was around 05-06 PM, when he conducted the
mechanical inspection.
6. PW-2/Sh. Jatin Lamba was examined-in-chief on
24.12.2019 and he stated on oath that he is the registered owner
of vehicle No. DLILP-7551. He further deposed that in the
month of August 2017; he went to PS Anand Parbat and police
official served him a notice u/s 133 MV Act and he filed his
reply on the same Ex.PW2/A. PW2 further deposed that he also
stood surety for the bail of accused. PW2 further deposed that
later on, he got the abovesaid vehicle released on superdari from
the Court vide superdarinama Ex.PW2/B and he has identified
the vehicle no. DLILP-7551 from four photographs shown to him
which are Ex. P-1 to P-4.
6.1. PW-2 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused and he deposed that accused is known to his
father but he does not know him personally. He further deposed Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:13:16 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 5 of 29
that as far as he can remember, accused was hired by them
around 6-7 months prior to the date of incident and this was the
first the incident committed by the accused. PW2 further deposed
that accused was fired from the service after this incident. He
further deposed that there was not so much damage on both the
vehicles i.e. motorcycle and abovesaid truck.
7. PW-3/Sh. Sunil was examined in chief on
24.12.2019 and he stated on oath that on 06.08.2017 at about
6:00 P.M., he had parked his motorcycle bearing registration No.
DLISAB-0238 outside his house and at around 8:30 P.M., he
came outside his house and saw that one dumper bearing No.
DLILP-7551 came in a very high speed and hit his motorcycle.
PW3 further deposed that the driver of the said dumper was
driving the abovesaid truck in zigzag manner and due to the
hitting from the dumper, his motorcycle got damaged. He further
deposed that thereafter, he asked the driver i.e., accused to stop
the dumper and the accused reversed the abovesaid dumper in a
high speed and thereafter, accelerated the dumper and ran away
from there. PW3 further deposed that accused was heavily drunk
at that time and thereafter, he chased the accused till his house.
PW3 further deposed that he requested accused to get repair his
abovesaid motorcycle but accused refused to do so and
thereafter, I returned back to his house. PW3 further deposed that
thereafter, he called at number 100 and police officials came at
his house and he apprised all the facts to police officials. PW3
further deposed that thereafter, he along with police officials
went to the house of accused and the police officials lifted the
abovesaid truck from the house of accused. He further deposed
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:13:22 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 6 of 29
that his vehicle was also taken to police station by the police
officials and he filed a complaint Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed
that when he checked his motorcycle, he found handle, lights, leg
guard and arm guard etc. were damaged.
7.1. PW3 further deposed that police officials
seized his motorcycle vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B and
prepared site plan at his instance. He further deposed that
accused was called to police station and after interrogation
accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos
Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW3/D. The witness correctly identified the
accused in the court and also identified vehicle No. DLILP-7551
from 04 photographs Ex. P-1 to P-4 as well as the motorcycle
from 05 photographs Ex. P-5 (colly).
7.2. PW-3 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused, and he has deposed that at the time when
accused hit his motorcycle with the abovesaid offending vehicle,
he was standing outside his house near his bike. PW3 admitted
the fact that his vehicle was insured at the time of accident. He
further deposed that he has not filed any case before the MACT
Court. He further deposed that he had informed the Insurance
Company about the accident of his motorcycle and he did not
receive any amount from Insurance Company. He further
deposed that all the expenses were borne by him in getting his
motorcycle repaired. PW3 denied the suggestion that he had
received amount from the insurance company. He further
deposed that he does not know accused prior to the accident.
PW3 further deposed that on the day of accident, accused was
driving the offending vehicle and when he stopped the accused,
ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:13:29 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 7 of 29
smell of alcohol was coming out of accused. PW3 denied the
suggestion that accused was not under the influence of alcohol at
the time of accident. He further denied the suggestion that
accused was falsely implicated by him in the present case or that
accused was not driving the alleged offending vehicle in rash and
negligent manner. PW3 also denied the suggestion that he is
deposing falsely.
8. PW-4/Sh. HC Dhirender Kumar was examined in
chief on 06.02.2023 and he deposed on oath that on 06.08.2017,
he was posted at PS Anand Parbat as Const. and on that day, he
was on emergency duty with IO SI Om Prakash. PW4 further
deposed that he along with IO reached at the spot i.e., F-259,
Punjabi Basti, Baljeet Nagar where Dumper No. DLIP-7551 and
motorcycle No. DLISAB-0238 were lying in accidental
condition. He further deposed that the complainant produced the
accused Anil Kumar and IO seized the both vehicles vide seizure
memo Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW4/A. PW4 further deposed that IO
prepared rukka and gave to him for registration of the FIR and he
went to PS and got registered the case and thereafter, he again
came to the spot. PW4 further deposed that IO arrested the
accused vide arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW3/C
and Ex. PW3/D and seized the documents of the vehicle vide
memo Ex.PW4/B and Ex.PW4/C. He further deposed that IO
seized the DL of accused vide memo Ex.PW4/D and IO
inspected the site at the instance of complainant and prepared site
plan. PW4 further deposed that the injured got medically
examined in Lady Hardinge Medical, College and his statement
was recorded. The witness has correctly identified the motorcycle
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:13:36 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 8 of 29
and dumper from the photographs, shown to him.
8.1. PW-4 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused, and he deposed that he departed from PS to spot
vide DD No. 8A and they reached at the spot at about 9:00 AM.
PW4 further deposed that he took rukka at about 10:00 AM and
returned at spot after 40-45 minutes. He further deposed that he
does not remember the time of leaving the spot lastly. PW4
denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot in the manner
deposed by him or that he signed the documents at the instance
of IO at PS. PW4 further denied the suggestion that he became
the witness in the present case at the instance of IO or that he is
deposing falsely.
9. PW-5/Sh. Kalu was examined in chief on
06.06.2023 wherein he deposed on oath that on 06.08.2017,
between 8-9 AM, he saw that accused Anil Kumar Singh was
driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner had hit the
two-wheeler make Hero Splender of one Mr. Sunil and the
accused was under intoxicated condition at the time of incident.
He further deposed that he can identify the vehicles, if shown to
him.
9.1. PW-5 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused, wherein he has deposed that he knows
complainant Sh. Sunil Kumar as he is his neighbour and he does
not remember the exact date, however, the accident had taken
place on a Sunday in the year 2017 at about 08:30 AM and at the
time of incident, he was standing outside his house and had
himself witnessed the same. PW5 further deposed that there were
many public persons present at the spot, however, no one agreed ANKUR
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:13:42 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 9 of 29
to be witness and he knows accused as the accused resides in the
same locality, however, he does not know his exact address as
there are several jhuggies in the area, in which the accused is
residing. PW5 further deposed that he does not know the name of
the accused and the accused was in drunk condition at the time of
driving and first he moved his car in the forward direction and
then in the back direction. He further deposed that the handle,
tanki, gear stand and indicator of the motorcycle were damaged
due to the accident. He further deposed that complainant Sunil
had called police officials and police officials came in his
presence and he and complainant did not beat the accused. PW5
further deposed that the wife of the accused had only beaten. He
further denied the suggestion that he along with complainant and
wife of accused had beaten the accused. He further denied the
suggestion that accused had suggested to compensate for the
damage caused to the motor vehicle. PW5 further deposed that
IO had conducted inquiry from him during investigation, as well
as public persons, however, no one agreed. He further deposed
that IO prepared the site plan at the spot and had apprehended the
accused almost immediately at about 08:30 AM-09:00 AM. He
further deposed that he did not go to PS along with the
complainant and police officials did not call him to PS for
investigation. He further deposed that he is a battery rickshaw
driver and he does not drink as he stays unwell. PW5 further
deposed that he does not have any eyesight problem. He further
deposed that he does not remember the number of the offending
vehicle or accident vehicle due to lapse of time. PW5 further
deposed that the complainant did not suffer any injury due to the
accident caused by the accused and he does not remember ANKUR
Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:13:48 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 10 of 29
whether complainant was taken to hospital or not. PW5 denied
the suggestion that no accident had taken place or that accused
has been falsely implicated in the present case or that
complainant and his motorcycle were not damaged by the
accused in any manner. PW5 further denied the suggestion that
the present case has been fled to extort money from the accused
or that he did know the accused before the accident or that he is
deposing falsely.
10. PW-6/Retd. SI Om Prakash was examined in chief
on 16.04.2025 and he stated on oath that on 06.08.2017, he was
posted at PS Anand Parbat as SI and on that day, at about 08:40
AM, he received a PCR call regarding accident. PW6 further
deposed that thereafter, he along with Ct. Dhirender went to the
spot i.e., F-259, Gayatri Colony, Anand where caller Sunil met
with him and told him that his motorcycle, which was present at
the spot, was hit by the offending vehicle. PW6 further deposed
that Sunil had produced before him the truck driver namely Anil
Kumar and told that Anil was driving the offending vehicle and
thereafter, he recorded the statement of Sunil Ex.PW3/A. PW6
further deposed that thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex.PW6/A and
he seized both the vehicles. PW6 further deposed that the
motorcycle was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/B and he
does not remember the registration number of the motorcycle. He
further deposed that the truck was seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A
and the truck number was DL1LA 7551. PW6 further deposed
that thereafter, he sent rukka to PS through Ct. Dhirender and got
registered the FIR. He further deposed that Ct. Dhirender
returned to the spot along with FIR copy as well as rukka and
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.18
14:13:54 +0530Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 11 of 29
handed over the same to him and thereafter, he prepared site plan
Ex.PW6/B at the instance of complainant. PW6 further deposed
that thereafter, he seized RC, DL, and other documents of both
the vehicles. He further deposed that he prepared seizure memo
Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D and thereafter, he along
with Ct. Dhirender and accused Anil went to Hospital for
medical examination of accused. PW6 further deposed that
medical examination of the accused was conducted and he
returned to the PS. He further deposed that accused has produced
a surety and thereafter, he released him on bail. PW6 further
deposed that thereafter, he gave notice Ex. PW2/A under Section
133 MV Act to the owner of the truck and mechanical inspection
of both the vehicles were conducted at his request. He further
deposed that the truck and motorcycle were released on superdari
at the order of Court. PW6 further deposed that he recorded the
statement of witnesses and prepared the charge sheet and filed
before the Court. He further deposed that he can identify the
accused, if shown to him. The witness has correctly identified the
motorcycle and truck from 9 photographs shown to him.
10.1. PW6 was cross examined by Ld. APP for the
state, after seeking permission form court, wherein he deposed
that he cannot recall the correct number of the truck, however
correct number of the truck is DL1LP 7551, when he was asked
leading question in that regard. He was asked a leading question
regarding registration number of motorcycle to which he stated
he had written the correct number in the file; however, he could
not recall the motorcycle number due to lapse of time. PW6
further deposed that the motorcycle number mentioned in the file
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:14:00 +0530Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 12 of 29
is correct. He admitted the fact that he had prepared arrest memo
Ex.PW3/C and personal search memo Ex.PW3/D. PW6 further
correctly identified the documents of truck as well as DL of the
accused.
10.2. During the course of trial PW6 was cross-
examined by the Ld. Counsel for accused wherein he deposed
that he had received information about DD entry from DO and he
reached at the spot at about 08:50 AM on motorcycle. He further
deposed that the motorcycle was lying in the accidental condition
and its lights of the front and hammer guard were damaged. He
further deposed that public persons were present there and one
more person apart from the complainant was ready to give his
statement. PW6 further deposed that he does not remember if he
had written the statement of that person. He further deposed that
the complainant was not injured in the present case and he had
prepared the site plan at the spot. He further deposed that he
cannot tell who has beaten the accused. He further deposed that
he did not take any action and he does not know if the
complainant had beaten the accused or not. He further deposed
that he does not remember what injuries were sustained by
accused Anil at his body. PW6 admitted the fact that accused had
offered to compensate the injured and the accused was taken to
Police Station from Hospital. He further deposed that accused
has not given any compensation to the complainant and he had
prepared rukka at the spot. He further deposed that he left the
spot at about 01:30 PM. PW6 denied the suggestion that no such
incident had happened. He further deposed that accused was
apprehended at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he is
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:14:06 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 13 of 29
deposing falsely or that the accused is falsely implicated in the
present case.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSON
11. Thereafter, in order to allow the accused person to
personally explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in
evidence against him, the statement of accused was recorded
without oath on 16.12.2025 under section 313 Cr. PC. He stated
that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. The accused submitted that he does not want to lead
defence evidence and the same was closed.
ARGUMENTS
12. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and Ld.
counsel for the accused person at length. I have also given my
thoughtful consideration of the material appearing on record.
13. It is argued by Ld. APP for the state that all the
ingredients of the offence are fulfilled in the present case. She
has argued that PW-2 has deposed that he in his reply to the
notice U/s 133 MV Act has stated that accused was driving the
vehicle on date of incident and he was fired after the incident. It
is further submitted that from testimony of PW3 it is evident that
the accused was driving the offending vehicle in zig-zag manner
and the dumper came in a very high speed and hit his motorcycle.
It is further submitted that PW3 has deposed that accused ran
away after causing accident and the accused as well as offending
vehicle have been identified by the accused. It is further
submitted that the accused was under intoxication at the time of
accident and same is evident from MLC of accused. It is further
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:14:12 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 14 of 29
submitted the fact of driving of offending vehicle, in rash and
negligent manner, has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts.
Further, the other evidence on record as corroborated the version
of the eyewitness and the offences are proved beyond any doubt.
As such, it is prayed that the accused persons be punished for the
said offences.
14. Per contra, Ld. counsel for the accused person has
argued that the state has failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Ld. counsel has argued that PW-3 has deposed
that the time of incident was in early morning hours and it is
highly improbable that any person will be drunk at the that point
of time. It is further argued that in the initial complaint and in the
testimony of complainant there are contradictions regarding
things that were damaged during accident. It is further submitted
that PW3 has submitted during cross examination that his vehicle
was insured. It is further submitted that PW4 has mentioned
incorrect number of the dumper. It is further submitted that PW5
has in his cross examination stated that he does not remember
exact date of incident and he has further deposed that there were
public persons at the spot but no public person has been made a
witness in present case. It is further submitted that PW6 did not
remember the registration number of motorcycle and has
wrongly mentioned the truck number. Ld. Counsel has submitted
that there are contradictions in the testimony of the eye-
witnesses. It is argued that prosecution has failed to discharge the
burden cast upon it. As such, it is prayed that accused persons be
acquitted for the said offences.
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
ANKUR Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.18
14:14:18
+0530Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 15 of 29
INGRIDIENTS OF THE OFFENCE
15. The accused has been charged for the offences of
rash driving on public way (S. 279 IPC) and driving under the
influence of alcohol (S. 185 MV Act) in the present case.
Whereas under section 279 IPC, the effect of rash or negligent
driving likely to endanger human life or cause hurt etc. is in itself
the offence and under section 185 MV Act, driving a motor
vehicle under the influence of alcohol has been made a
punishable offence. In order to bring home the guilt of the
accused, the prosecution has to prove that the accused was
driving the offending vehicle in rash or negligent manner, and
while doing so the accused was under the influence of alcohol.
16. It would be appropriate to reproduce sections 279
IPC & 185 MV Act which are as follows:
“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 im-
prisonment 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.
185. Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the
influence of drugs–Whoever, while driving, or attempting to
drive, a motor vehicle, —
(a) has, in his blood, alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of
blood detected in a test by a breath analyser, or
(b) is under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be
incapable of exercising proper control over the vehicle.
shall be punishable for the first offence with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to two thousand rupees, or with both; and for a second or
subsequent offence, if committed within three years of the
commission of the previous similar offence, with imprisonment
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.18
14:14:24 +0530Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 16 of 29
for term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may
extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation. –For the purposes of this section, the drug or
drugs specified by the Central Government in this behalf, by
notification in the Official Gazette, shall be deemed to render a
person incapable of exercising proper control over a motor
vehicle.”
17. In order to prove the offences punishable under
section 279 IPC, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable
doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz.,
i. That accident actually took place;
ii. that a vehicle was driven or ridden by the accused at the
time of accident;
iii. that the accused was driving it on a public way;
iv. the said vehicle was driven in a rash or negligent manner;
and
v. Driving was such so as to endanger human life, or to be
likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
17.1. All the ingredients need to be established
beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of eyewitnesses and
circumstantial evidence, as well as in the light of judicial
measurements and with the judicial interpretation as already
established.
18. In order to prove the offences punishable under
section 185 MV Act, the prosecution has to prove beyond
reasonable doubt, the following mandatory ingredients, viz.,
i. The act of driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle:
This must be linked to the time of the alleged violation.
Simply being near the vehicle isn’t enough; control or
operation is key; ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.18
14:14:30
+0530Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 17 of 29
ii. Presence of alcohol or intoxicating substances beyond
permissible limits: Alcohol exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml.
of blood, determined by scientific test such as breath
analyser; and
iii. Linkage between the act and intoxication: The intoxicants
must be such so as to make the accused incapable of
exercising proper control over the vehicle.
18.1. While the first ingredient needs to be
established beyond reasonable doubt with the aid of eyewitnesses
and circumstantial evidence, whereas the second and third
ingredients need to be established with the aid of medical
evidence.
19. Thus, the gravamen of the offences under sections
279 IPC is the act of accused, done with “rashness” or
“negligence”. The IPC does not define either of these terms.
However, the ambit of these terms has now been settled by
judicial pronouncements of superior courts. In Empress of India
vs. Idu Beg ILR (1881) 3 All 776 the term “rashness” was
interpreted to mean commission of an act with indifference or
recklessness towards then consequence of such act. The Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Rathnashavlvan vs. State of Karnataka
(2007) 3 SCC 474 has observed, inter alia, as under:
“7. …. 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 of a risk
that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will
not. 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 Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:14:37 +0530Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 18 of 29
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.
8. 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.”
Similar observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sushil Ansal vs. CBI (2014) 6 SCC 173. The
standard of negligence was discussed in the said case, by
observing, inter alia, as under: –
“58. In the case of “negligence” the courts have favoured a
meaning which implies a 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
which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the
charge arises, it may be the imperative duty of the accused to
have adopted. Negligence has been understood to be an omission
to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human
affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and
reasonable person would not do. Unlike rashness, where the
immutability arises from acting despite the consciousness,
negligence implies acting without such consciousness, but in
circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the
caution incumbent upon him. The immutability in the case of
negligence arises from the neglect of the civil duty of
circumspection.”
Thus, rashness implies doing an act despite consciousness
that it might result in injuries, negligence, on the other hand,
means lack of reasonable care that a person placed in the effect
situation ought to take, in order to avoid injuries. ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:14:43 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 19 of 29
20. Furthermore, three judges Bench of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pearl Beverages Ltd [2021] 14 S.C.R. 104:
2021 INSC 247 has observed, inter alia, as under:
“4.2 Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act creates a criminal
offence. The short title of Section 185 undoubtedly proclaims
that it purports to deal with driving by a drunken person or by a
person under the influence of drugs. The offence as far as
driving by a drunken person is concerned, was built around
breach of an objective standard, viz., the presence of alcohol in
the driver in excess of 30 mg per 100 ml. of blood detected in a
test of breath analyser. The Section mandates the proving of the
objective criteria of presence of alcohol exceeding 30 mg per
100 ml. of blood in a test by a breath analyser. It is here that
Section 203 of the Motor Vehicles Act becomes apposite. It
empowers the police officer to require any person driving or
attempting to drive motor vehicle in a public place to provide
one or more specimen of breath for breath test, if Police Officer
or Officer of Motor Vehicle Department has reasonable cause to
suspect the driver has committed an offence u/s 185. Section
203(2) deals with the situation where the vehicle is involved in
an accident in a public place. In such circumstances, on a Police
Officer in uniform entertaining any reasonable cause to suspect
that the person driving the vehicle, at the time of the accident,
had alcohol in his blood, inter alia, he may require the person to
provide specimen of his breath in the breath test in the manner
provided. Section 203(6) declares that the result of the breath
test made under Section 203 shall be admissible in evidence.
Section 203 contemplates arrest without warrant being effected,
if the test indicated the presence of alcohol in the breath test.
Section 204 follows up on a person who is arrested under
Section 203. It, inter alia, provides that a person who has been
arrested under Section 203 is to provide to such medical
practitioner as may be produced by such police officer, a
specimen of his blood for a laboratory test, if either it appears to
the police officer that the breath test reveals the presence of
alcohol in the blood of such person or such person when given
the opportunity to submit to a breath test, has refused, omitted or
failed to do so. The result of the laboratory test is also made
admissible. Section 185 deals with driving or attempting driving
of a motor vehicle a person with alcohol in excess of 30 mg per
100 ml in blood which is detected in a test of breath analyser.
Being a criminal offence, it is indisputable that the ingredients
of the offence must be established as contemplated by law
which means that the case must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt and evidence must clearly indicate the level of alcohol in
excess of 30 mg in 100 ml blood and what is more such ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
Date:
PANGHAL 2026.04.18
14:14:49
+0530Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 20 of 29
presence must be borne out by a test by a breath analyser. With
effect from 01.09.2019, the following words have been added to
Section 185, that is “or in any other test including laboratory
test”. [Paras 52, 53] [167-C-H; 168-A-E]
21. Needless to mention, in criminal law, the burden of
proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt. The
resumption of the notions of the accused has to be rebutted by the
prosecution by reducing cogent evidence that point was the guilt
of accused. The evidence in the present case is to be weighed
keeping in view the above legal standards.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
22. Applying the abovementioned law as well as
findings, it has to be examined whether the prosecution is able to
prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused has
committed offences punishable U/s 279 IPC and 185 MVAct.
23. For the offence punishable U/s 279 IPC, it has to be
seen that the onus is on prosecution to prove the ingredients.
The first is that accident took place by the offending vehicle.
The second is that offending vehicle was driven by the accused
on a public way. The third is that offending vehicle was driven
by the accused in a rash or negligent manner and the last is that
due to such driving hurt or injury could have been caused to any
person. Let us examine whether the ingredients, as mentioned
above, for the offence punishable U/s 279 IPC have been proved
by the prosecution or not.
23.1 Accident, Driving & Identification of
accused: PW3 is the complainant as well as star witness of the
prosecution and PW5 is an eyewitness, who is not related to
PW3, in any sense. PW3 as well as PW5 have very categorically
deposed that the accident took place and that the dumper bearing
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:14:56 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 21 of 29
no. DL1LP7551 has hit motorcycle of complainant. 1 From their
testimony it is also evident that the accident took place on a
public way and the same is corroborated from site plan Ex.
PW6/B. Furthermore, PW2 is the owner of offending vehicle
and he in his testimony has deposed that he has given reply Ex.
PW2/A in his handwriting, to the notice U/s 133 MV Act,
stating the accused was driving the offending vehicle on date of
incident. Testimony of PW2 is corroborated from the testimony
of PW3 as well as PW5, who have deposed that accused was
driving the offending vehicle on date of incident. Furthermore,
PW3 has correctly identified the accused in the court.
23.2. In view of the same, the burden fell upon the
accused to show as to who was driving the vehicle, if he was
not. He was given an opportunity to explain the same in his
statement U/s 313 CrPC, but he chose to make only a plain and
bald denial of his involvement in the said offence. He has not
given any statement to rebut the testimony of PW2, PW3 and
PW5. As per the settled legal position, the silence of the accused
in this regard will work as an additional link in the chain of
circumstances found against him.
23.3. However, certain points were raised by the
Ld. Counsel for accused, in his defence, such as there are
contradictions in FIR and testimony of PW3 regarding things
that were destroyed during accident and the fact the PW4 has
mentioned wrong number of offending vehicle. It is further
pointed out by accused that PW5 has deposed that there were
1
PW3 has deposed that on 06.08.2017 at about 6:00 P.M., he had parked his motorcycle
bearing registration No. DLISAB-0238 outside his house and at around 8:30 P.M., he came
outside his house and saw that one dumper bearing No. DLILP-7551 came in a very high
speed and hit his motorcycle. PW3 further deposed that the driver of the said dumper was
driving the abovesaid truck in zigzag manner and due to the hitting from the dumper, his
motorcycle got damaged. ANKUR Digitally signed by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.18 14:15:02 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 22 of 29
many public persons, but no other public person has been made
a witness in present case. It has been further pointed out that the
IO did not remember registration number of vehicle and has
wrongly mentioned the number of offending vehicle. It is further
pointed out that PW5 was not able to tell the date of incident. As
such it is the defence of accused that there are material
inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
23.4. Perusal of testimony of PW4 reveals that he
has mentioned the registration number of offending vehicle as
DL1P7551, whereas the complete number is DL1LP7551. Thus,
it cannot be said that the witness has mentioned wrong number
of the vehicle, rather the number of vehicle which was told by
PW4 was not complete. Furthermore, PW6 has also mentioned
the registration number of offending vehicle as DL1LA7551.
The last 4 digits of offending vehicle have been deposed
correctly by PW4 as well as PW5 and their testimonies are
corroborated by PW2 and PW3. Furthermore, testimony of PW1
also reveals that he had conducted mechanical inspection of
offending vehicle. Furthermore, PW4 and PW6 have identified
the offending vehicle form the photographs on record. The
offending vehicle was also identified by its owner PW2 as well
as by the complainant PW3.
23.5. It is further pointed out on behalf of accused
that PW5 was not able to tell the date of incident in his cross
examination. Perusal of testimony of PW5 reveals that he has
deposed that the accident took place on a Sunday in the year
2017 and the date of incident was a Sunday. Thus, if testimony
of PW5 is read in light of testimonies of all other witnesses, the
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:15:10 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 23 of 29
same is corroborated by them. PW5 is an independent public
person. Moreover, the testimony of PW1 as well as PW5 is of
high value as they are independent witnesses and it is not the
case that accused was previously known to the witnesses or
there was some enmity between them and there is no reason for
them to falsely framed the accused and to shield the real culprit.
[Shamim vs. State of NCT of Delhi (AIR 2018 SC 4529) relied
upon].
24. It is pertinent to mention the observation of
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Kuna @ Sanjaya Behera vs.
State of Odisha, 2017 SCC Online SC 1336 that the conviction
can be based on the testimony of single eyewitness if he or she
passes the test of reliability and that is not the number of
witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Veer Singh & Others vs
State of UP, (2014) 2 SCC 455 observed as under:
“Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of
evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of
witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but quality of their
evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the
Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be
examined to prove/disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed
and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines
the adequacy of evidence as has been proved under section 134
of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the court can and may act
on the testimony of single witness provided, he is wholly
reliable.”
The prosecution does not require number of eye witnesses
to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if there is one
eyewitness and his testimony is up to the mark, the conviction
can be based upon the same. In Namdeo vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India held as under: ANKUR
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:15:16 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 24 of 29
“In the leading case of Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, this Court held that even where
a case hangs on the evidence of a single eye witness it may be
enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a
competent, honest man although as a rule of prudence courts call
for corroboration. “It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to
be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than
quantity in human affairs.” In Anil Phukan v. State of Assam,
(1993) 3 SCC 282 : JT 1993 (2) SC 290, the Court observed;
“Indeed, conviction can be based on the testimony of a single
eye witness and there is no rule of law or evidence which says to
the contrary provided the sole witness passes the test of
reliability. So long as the single eyewitness is a wholly reliable
witness the courts have no difficulty in basing conviction on his
testimony alone. However, where the single eye witness is not
found to be a wholly reliable witness, in the sense that there are
some circumstances which may show that he could have an
interest in the prosecution, then the courts generally insist upon
some independent corroboration of his testimony, in material
particulars, before recording conviction. It is only when the
courts find that the single eye witness is a wholly unreliable
witness that his testimony is discarded in toto and no amount of
corroboration can cure that defect.”
25. The Hon’ble Apex Court has pointed out in a catena
of judgments that minor inconsistencies not going to the root of
the matter, are of no consequence. In Brahm Swaroop vs. State of
UP (2011) 6 SCC 288, it was observed, inter alia, as under –
“32. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the
evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters,
which do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case, may not
prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. “Irrelevant
details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a
witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions.”
Difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise
affect the core of the prosecution case, even if present, would
not itself prompt the court to reject the evidence on minor
variations and discrepancies. After exercising care and caution
and sifting through the evidence to separate truth from untruth,
exaggeration and improvements, the court comes to a conclusion
as to whether the residuary evidence is sufficient to convict the
accused. Thus, an undue importance should not be attached to
omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to
the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the
prosecution witness. As the mental capabilities of a human
being cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb all the details,
ANKUR Digitally signed by
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:15:23 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 25 of 29
minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the statements of
witnesses. (See: State of UP vs. MK Anthony (1985) 1 SCC
505, State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash (2007) 12 SCC 381,
State vs. Saravanan (2008) 17 SCC 587 and Prithu vs. State of
HP (2009) 11 SCC 588)”
26. Thus, from the testimony of the eyewitness PW3
and PW5 as well as in light of above mentioned settled legal
precedents the fact of accident is proved beyond any reasonable
doubt and it is also proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the
accused was driving the offending vehicle on a public way at the
time of accident.
27. Rashness or Negligence: To prove the rashness and
negligence the prosecution has examined primarily three
witnesses i.e., PW2, PW3 and PW5. PW2 has deposed that the
accused was fired after this incident. PW3 has categorically
deposed that accused was driving the offending vehicle at a very
high speed and in zig zag manner. PW3 further deposed that after
hitting the motorcycle, the accused reversed the offending
vehicle in a high speed and thereafter, accelerated the vehicle and
ran away. PW5 has also deposed that the accused was driving the
offending vehicle in rash and negligent manner and has first
moved the vehicle in forward direction and then in back
direction.
28. In order to ascertain whether the manner of driving
the offending vehicle was indeed rational negligent, the
surrounding circumstances are to be considered. The accident
took place after sunrise in month of August. PW3 deposed that
the accident took place around 08:30 A.M. in the month of
August. It is not the case of the defence that there was low
visibility owing to weather conditions. The most important factor
is that the offending vehicle was being driven on a public road Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:15:29 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 26 of 29
and it was also driven in backward direction, as evident from
testimony of PW3 and PW5. The Motor Vehicles (Driving)
Regulations, 2017 provide that no motor vehicle shall be driven
on to a public road in the reverse direction. The relevant
regulation is reproduced below: –
18. Restrictions on driving backwards (in reverse direction).-
(1) No driver of a motor vehicle shall drive the vehicle
backwards (in the reverse direction) on a road or in a parking or
any other public place: Provided that the driver shall while
driving backwards ensure that the backward movement of the
vehicle does not in any manner endanger the safety of, or cause
undue inconvenience to, the other road users and that such
reverse movement is for a distance and duration that may be
reasonably necessary to turn around the vehicle.
(2) No motor vehicle shall be driven on to a public road in the
reverse direction.
(3) No motor vehicle shall be driven backwards into a road
designated as “ONE WAY”.
29. Injury caused to Complainant: It is further case of
prosecution that the accused has caused damage to the
motorcycle of the complainant. Section 44 of IPC defined injury
as any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body,
mind, reputation or property.2 From the testimonies of PW3 and
PW5 it is evident that the accused had hit the offending vehicle
with the motorcycle of complainant and has thereby caused harm
to the property of complainant. Thus, the present ingredient also
stands established by the prosecution.
30. In view of the above narration, this court has no
hesitation to hold that all the essential ingredients of the offence
punishable U/s 279 IPC are fulfilled in the present case.
31. For the offence punishable U/s 185 MV Act, it has
to be seen that the onus is on prosecution to prove the
ingredients. The primary ingredient that is required to be proved
2
“Injury”.–The word “injury” denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person,
Digitally signed by
ANKUR
in body, mind, reputation or property. PANGHAL
ANKUR PANGHAL
Date: 2026.04.18
14:15:36 +0530
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 27 of 29
by the prosecution by way of scientific evidence that alcohol
exceeding 30 mg. per 100 ml. of blood was present in the blood
of accused. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon
the oral testimony of PW3 and PW5 who have deposed that the
accused was in intoxicated condition and has also relied upon the
MLC of accused, in which it has been mentioned that smell of
alcohol was coming from breath of accused. However, the said
MLC was never tendered in evidence and was not exhibited
during the trial. Further, the doctors who prepared the MLC were
never examined as witness, as they were not made witness by the
IO, in list of witnesses filed with the chargesheet. Furthermore, if
even if the MLC would have been exhibited, that would not have
been sufficient to prove the case of prosecution beyond all
reasonable doubts, as no breath analyser test was conducted. In
the absence of breath analyser test it could not be determined as
to how much quantity of alcohol was present in the blood of
accused. Thus, the primary ingredient required to prove the
offence punishable U/s 185 MV Act has not been established.
Therefore, the rest of ingredients of the offence punishable U/s
185 MV Act are not discussed.
CONCLUSION
32. In view of the above discussion, the inevitable
conclusion is that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients
of the offence punishable U/s 279 IPC beyond any iota of doubt.
This Court has no hesitation to hold that the required threshold
has been met by the prosecution and it has been able to
successfully prove that the accused person has committed the
offence under Section 279 IPC. The accused person has failed to
Digitally signed
by ANKUR
ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date:
2026.04.18
14:15:42 +0530Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 28 of 29
punch any holes on material aspects in the case set up by the
prosecution, despite detailed cross examination of the witnesses.
The star witnesses of the prosecution, i.e. the complainant, has
deposed categorically and cogently about the commission of
offence by the accused person, despite being subjected to lengthy
cross examination. The inconsistencies brought out by the
accused persons in the case of the prosecution are minor and do
not go to the root of the matter. The defence of the accused
persons of false implication remains unproved. However, the
evidence qua the commission of offence punishable U/s 185 MV
Act is insufficient.
33. Resultantly, the accused person namely ANIL
KUMAR SINGH S/o SH. DEV NANDAN SINGH is hereby
found guilty and is CONVICTED of the offence punishable
under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, he
is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 185 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
34. The convict be heard on point of sentence
separately.
35. Copy of the judgment be provided free of cost to the
convict, forthwith.
Announced in open court on 18.04.2026 in the presence of the convict.
The judgment contains 29 pages and each page have been signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signed by
ANKUR ANKUR PANGHAL
PANGHAL Date: 2026.04.18
14:15:48 +0530
(ANKUR PANGHAL)
JMFC-05, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
18/04/2026
Cr. Case No. 3293/2018 State vs. Anil Kumar Singh Page 29 of 29
