Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Subhag on 23 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by - Ms. Medha Arya, DJS
Cr. Case No. : 597/2023
FIR No. : 301/2021
Police Station : Saket
Section(s) : 279/338 IPC & 115/194 MV Act
In the matter of -
STATE
Vs.
Ram Subhag
S/o Sh. Ram Karan @ Chandrashekhar
R/o Ram Lal Ki Jhuggi
Jagdamba Camp
Sheikh Sarai, Phase I
New Delhi .... Accused
1.
Name of Complainant : Sh. Prakash Sriwal
2. Name of Accused : Ram Subhag
279/338 IPC & 115/194 MV
3. Offence complained of or proved :
Act
4. Plea of Accused : Not guilty
5. Date of commission of offence : 18.10.2021
6. Date of Filing of case : 30.01.2023
7. Date of Reserving Order : 15.07.2025
8. Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025
9. Final Order : Acquitted
Argued by - Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Vijay Sagar Pandey, Ld. Counsel for the
accused.
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 1 of 19
“There’s the King’s Messenger. He’s in prison now, being punished:
and the trial doesn’t even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the
crime comes last of all.”
“Suppose he never commits the crime?” said Alice.
“That would be all the better, wouldn’t it?”
Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass
The accused has been facing trial in a case equally as fantastical. The
prosecution alleged that the accused was driving his vehicle rashly and
negligently that caused an accident resulting in grievous injuries to the
victim, but the only evidence brought on record of the fact, if it can be
so termed, is the mere assertion of the victim that the accused was
negligent. The victim only rendered an opinion qua the manner in
which accused was driving, and did not testify about any particulars of
the case to explain the basis of such opinion. No other evidence was
brought on record against the accused by the prosecution either. As
such therefore, accused stands acquitted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION
FACTUAL MATRIX –
1. Succinctly stated, it is the case of prosecution that on
18.10.2021, at about 05:45 PM, near TB Hospital Red Light,
Aurobindo Marg, Lado Sarai, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS
Saket, accused Ram Subhag S/o Sh. Ram Karan @ Chandrashekhar
was found driving Goods Carrier Truck bearing registration no.
DL1LT7793 in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human
life and personal safety of others, and while driving so, he hit the
motorcycle bearing registration no. DL4SCG7845 of complainant i.e.
Sh. Prakash Sriwal. It is further the case of prosecution that in the
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 2 of 19
accident, the aforesaid Sh. Prakash Sriwal sustained grievous injuries.
It is also alleged that the entry of the offending vehicle was not
permissible at the place of incident, at the relevant time. It is the case
of prosecution that the accused thus committed offences punishable u/s
279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the
IPC“), and u/s 115/194 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as “the MV Act“).
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused.
Cognizance was taken, and he was summoned to face trial. Copy of
charge sheet was supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 CrPC.
Thereafter, formal notice in terms of Section 251 CrPC was served
upon him for the offences punishable u/s 279/338 IPC and 115/194
MV Act, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial. Proceedings
then progressed to the stage of PE.
3. In support of its version, prosecution has examined seven
witnesses:
PW Name Nature of Testimony
PW1 Sh. Prakash Sriwal Complainant.
PW2 Sh. Gore Lal Sharma Registered owner of the offending
vehicle.
PW3 HC Dharmender Accompanied the first IO during the
(2907/SD) investigation.
PW4 HC Ghanshyam PCR caller.
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 3 of 19
PW5 HC Dharmender He had clicked the photographs of the
(3174/Traffic) accused and the offending vehicle
after the incident.
PW6 SI Sandeep Kumar Second IO of the case.
PW7 ASI Sher Mohammad First IO of the case.
4. Accused admitted, as per Section 294 CrPC, the genuineness of
the following documents:
1 Endorsement by DO Ex A1
2 The present FIR Ex A2
3 Certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex A3
4 Mechanical Inspection Report of vehicle no.
Ex A4
DL4SCG7845
5 Mechanical Inspection Report of vehicle no.
Ex A5
DL1LT7793
6 MLC No. 500288746 dated 18.10.2021 Ex A6
7 Letter no. 8125/TE(D-II) Traffic dated 19.11.2022 Ex A7
8 Duty Roster dated 18.10.2021 of Ct. Dharmender
Ex A8
and Ct. Ghanshyam
4.1 In view of the above said admission, rest of the prosecution
witnesses, all formal in nature, were dropped from the list of witnesses
to be examined.
5. No other witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and PE
was closed. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, separate
statement of accused was recorded u/s 281/313 CrPC with a view to
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 4 of 19
accord an opportunity to accused to explain the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him at trial, wherein he, inter alia,
stated as under:
“I have been falsely implicated in the case. I was going towards
Malviya Nagar from Lado Sarai. I stopped at the red light. At that
time, a bike hit my vehicle from behind. I had entered into ‘No
Entry Area’. No accident was caused due to my rashness or
negligence.”
5.1 Accused opted not to lead any DE in the affirmative.
6. Proceedings then progressed to the stage of final arguments.
Arguments heard. Record perused. Considered.
7. Before proceeding further, it shall be apposite to note the
provisions of law germane for the adjudication of present proceedings :
Section 279 IPC – 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 to 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.
Section 338 IPC – Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or
personal safety of others –
Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so
rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety
of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
8. Liability for the aforesaid offences can be affixed upon the
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 5 of 19
accused only if the prosecution is able to prove he was “rash or
negligent” when driving the offending vehicle, which resulted in the
accident. In Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam vs State Of Andhra
Pradesh (2000) 7 SCC 72, the scope of the terms “rashness or
negligence” was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
thus, “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 driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and
proper care and precaution.”
9. Section 115 MV Act provides as under:
Power to restrict the use of vehicles – The State Government or
any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government,
if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or
convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may
by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject
to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the
notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified
class or description of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either
generally in a specified area or on a specified road and when any
such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate
traffic signs to be placed or erected under section 116 at suitable
places:
Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this
section is to remain in force for not more than one month,
notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not be necessary,
but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall beState vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 6 of 19
given of such prohibition or restriction.
Further, Section 194 MV Act provides as under:
Driving vehicle exceeding permissible weight –
i) Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a
motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of
section 113 or section 114 or section 115 shall be punishable with
minimum fine of two thousand rupees and an additional amount
of one thousand rupees per tonne of excess load, together with the
liability to pay charges for off-loading of the excess load.
ii) Any driver of a vehicle who refuses to stop and submit his
vehicle to weighing after being directed to do so by an officer
authorised in this behalf under section 114 or removes or causes
the removal of the load or part of it prior to weighing shall be
punishable with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees.
10. Section 115 MV Act empowers the State Government or any
authorized agency, to restrict the movement of certain vehicles on
specified roads or areas, for public safety and convenience, and
Section 194 MV Act provides for the penal consequences of
contravention of such condition.
11. With the above in mind, the facts of the case shall be adverted
to. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, u/s 279/338 IPC and
Section 115/194 MV Act, the prosecution had to establish –
(i) That the accident took place on a public way.
(ii) That the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
(iii) That in the accident that took place, injured/complainant
Prakash Sriwal sustained grievous injuries.
(iv) That the accident took place because of the ‘rashness or
negligence’ of the driver of the offending vehicle.
(v) That the offending vehicle was being driven by the
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 7 of 19
accused at the relevant time.
(vi) Additionally, for the offence punishable u/s 115/194 MV
Act, prosecution was also required to establish that the accident
occurred at a place which the offending vehicle was prohibited to be at,
at the relevant time.
12. Case of the prosecution is that the accused, while driving the
offending vehicle rashly and negligently, entered a ‘No Entry Zone’,
and hit against the motorcycle of the complainant, causing grievous
injuries to the latter. That the offending vehicle as well as the vehicle
of the complainant were involved in the accident has nowhere been
denied by the accused. In fact, the mechanical inspection reports of
both the vehicles have been admitted by the accused, being Ex A4 and
A5. These reports show that both of the vehicles were involved in the
accident alleged. Even from the tenor of the cross-examination of the
witness as well as the submissions made by the accused when his
statement was recorded u/s 313/281 CrPC, it is clear that the accused
did not deny the fact that the two vehicles were embroiled in the
accident, or that he was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the
accident. PW2 Gore Lal Sharma, being the owner of the offending
vehicle, testified that accused was driving the offending vehicle at the
relevant time, as per the reply to notice u/s 133 MV Act given to him,
Ex PW2/A. His testimony has also not been controverted by the
accused. The case of prosecution to the extent that the accident took
place on a public way has also not been denied by the accused. He has
also not denied the fact that the complainant suffered grievous injuries
in the accident that took place, and has admitted the MLC of the
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 8 of 19
complainant, Ex A6. From the above, ingredient nos. (i), (ii), (iii) & (v)
stand established.
13. It shall now be examined if the prosecution has been able to
prove that the accident took place due to rashness or negligence of the
accused. In this regard, the testimony of PW1, being the injured as well
as the sole eyewitness of the case, assumes paramount importance.
Testifying as PW1, complainant stated that on the day of the incident,
when he was going towards his residence at Loni, Ghaziabad, and had
reached near TB Hospital, Red Light, Lado Sarai, one truck bearing
registration no. DL1LT7793 suddenly approached his vehicle from
behind, and hit his vehicle from the right side. He testified that as a
result of the impact, he fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries
on his right leg. He further testified that a call was made to PCR by
some unknown person, after which some police officials reached the
spot, and he was rushed to AIIMS Trauma Centre, from where he was
later shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. He testified that on the day of the
accident, the IO had reached the spot, but he could not give any
statement to him, as he was suffering from immense pain, and his
statement Ex PW1/A, on the basis of which the FIR has been
registered, was recorded by the IO subsequently on 20.10.2021. He
testified that he had seen the accused at the spot, and correctly
identified him during his testimony. He also identified the offending
vehicle from the photographs thereof, Ex P1 (Colly).
13.1 Ld. defence counsel, during the course of arguments, waxed
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 9 of 19
eloquent that the fact that the complainant did not give his statement to
the IO until two days after the incident is a major gap in the
prosecution case. This Court does not find itself in agreement with this
argument. The explanation given by the witness regarding the delay is
not outlandish, and mere delay of two days in giving the complaint to
the IO does not dent the prosecution case in any manner.
13.2 However, this Court is of the considered opinion that testimony
of PW1 is woefully inadequate in establishing that the cause of the
accident was the rash or negligent driving of the accused. PW1 merely
stated in his examination in chief that the accused overtook his vehicle,
and while doing so, hit his vehicle from the right side. However, he did
not explain what was the state of traffic on the road when the accident
took place. He also did not explain, with sufficient particulars, the
circumstances in which the accident took place. That is to say, he did
not explain if there was any vehicle on the road right behind him, or
any front of him, when he fell, and the reaction of the respective
drivers of said vehicles. He also did not explain at what point did the
offending vehicle stop after the accident, if at all, and if it did not, how
could he identify the accused in his testimony. Bare testimony of the
witness to the effect that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed
does not establish the rashness or negligence of the accused. Speed is a
relative concept, and what can be considered to be rashness can only
be determined vis-a-vis other conditions of the road, including the flow
of traffic on the road at relevant time. In his cross-examination, the
witness admitted that there was moderate traffic on the road at that
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 10 of 19
time. He also admitted that there was some traffic jam on the road. In
view of the same, his testimony to the effect that the accused was
driving his vehicle at an inordinately high speed, which would
constitute rashness, cannot be accepted. The witness has failed to
clarify how thickly or sparsely the road was populated at that time and
what was the nature of crowd on the road. Infact, the deposition
during the cross examination regarding traffic jam at the road damages
the case of prosecution since it is inconsistent with his testimony
regarding inordinately high speed of offending vehicle being the cause
of accident. If that be so, mere opinion of the witness to the effect that
the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner
does not further the case of the prosecution, absent any explanation by
the witness exactly how the offending vehicle was being driven rashly
or negligently. It is to be borne in mind that opinion of a witness on the
rashness or negligence of the accused cannot be accepted as proof of
such rashness/negligence [Ref. Kishore Chand Joshi Vs. State, (2018)
SCC OnLine Del 12337)].
14. At the cost of reiteration, PW1 himself testified in his cross
examination that there was some slight traffic jam, as noted above, and
that the vehicles on the road were generally plying at a speed of 30-40
KMPH. Given the situation that there was some traffic jam at the road,
it is not clear how the offending vehicle could have suddenly come at a
high speed, and hit the motorcycle of the complainant. From the
testimony of PW1 itself, it appears that the conditions at the road were
not conducive for the offending vehicle to be driven by the accused
rashly at a high speed. He did not say if the offending vehicle had
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 11 of 19
slowed down for a while, immediately after the impact, whether any
public persons had attempted to stop the offending vehicle, and if the
accused left the spot with the offending vehicle, how could he manage
to do so given the fact that there was traffic on the road. It was
suggested to the witness that the accident occurred since he tried to
overtake the offending vehicle, while driving his own vehicle at a very
high speed. From the mechanical inspection reports as well as the
testimony of PW1, all that stands established that the two vehicles
were involved in an accident. However, his testimony being bereft of
any material particulars regarding the manner in which the accident
took place, even the suggestion given by the accused regarding an
alternate cause of the accident also appears to be equally plausible.
Merely establishing that an accident took place between the two
vehicles is not sufficient to affix criminal responsibility upon the
accused, and there has to be cogent evidence on the record that the
accident was the result of rashness or negligence of the accused. From
the testimony of PW1, this conclusion cannot be arrived at.
15. Testimony of PW1 does not receive fortification from the
testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses as well.
16. PW4 HC Ghanshyam testified that in the year 2021, he was
posted at Traffic Circle, Saket. He testified that on the day of the
incident, he was on duty at Aurobindo Road, Firni Road, where at
about 06.00 PM, he heard the noise of a collision, and when he turned
back, he saw that one half-body truck had hit one bike rider, and had
fled away with the offending vehicle. He testified that he immediately
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 12 of 19
went to the spot to the help of the injured, who had fallen on the road
with the help of some public persons, and then made a call to the PCR
at 100 number. He testified that when the PCR reached the spot, the
injured was shifted to the hospital. He testified that he narrated the
entire version to the IO. He also testified that in the meanwhile, HC
Dharmender, who was also on duty at PTS Red Light, had asked him if
he had seen the accident, and he further stated that he had then replied
to HC Dharmender that he had seen one vehicle hit a motorcyclist, and
then flee from the spot. He testified that he does not remember the
registration number of the offending vehicle due to lapse of time. He
also testified that he cannot identify the accused who had fled from the
spot before he could see him properly. When cross-examined by ld.
APP for the State in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, the witness testified that the registration number of the offending
vehicle as mentioned in the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC is
correct, and he could just not recollect the same due to passage of time.
He also testified that the site plan Ex PW4/A was made by the IO at his
instance. In his cross examination, the witness categorically accepted
as correct the suggestion that he had not seen the exact collision
between the vehicles, and had turned towards the spot of the accident
only after hearing the noise of the collision. As such, from the
testimony of this witness as well, it cannot be surmised that the cause
of the accident was the rash or negligent driving of the accused.
Furthermore, it is seen that in his cross examination, the witness
admitted that at the time when the accident took place, there is heavy
traffic to be found at the spot of the accident. Given this admission, the
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 13 of 19
version of the complainant that the accident occurred, as the offending
vehicle had hit his motorcycle from behind, at which time the
offending vehicle was being driven at a rashly high speed, further
becomes difficult to accept.
17. Another important aspect of the matter is that the site plan Ex
PW4/A, which has been relied upon by the prosecution has not been
made at the instance of the complainant. Instead, PW4 testified that the
IO made the site plan at his instance. Now, in his cross examination, he
admitted that he does not remember the date on which the IO had
obtained his signatures on the site plan, and does not even remember
the date on which the IO had recorded his statement. The witness did
not say that the site plan was prepared by the IO on the day of the
incident or within a few days of the incident. Instead, he categorically
stated that he does not remember when the site plan was prepared at
all. This casts a shadow of doubt on the veracity of the site plan as
prepared by the IO. Even otherwise, bare perusal of the site plan Ex
PW4/A reveals that the same has not been drawn upto scale. Further,
the same does not show the trajectory which was being followed by
both the vehicles which were involved in the accident. It does not show
what path was the offending vehicle being driven at, and also does not
show any skid marks. Complainant categorically testified that the
accident took place near a red light. Even such red light has not been
demarcated on the site pan. The site plan deserves to be discarded.
Case of prosecution receives no fortification from the said document,
or the testimony of PW4.
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 14 of 19
18. PW5 HC Dharmender, testified that on the day of the incident at
about 06.00 pm, one car driver had come and informed him that a truck
had committed an accident and would be reaching at the point where
he was standing. He testified that when the truck came to the spot, he
stopped the truck and apprehended the driver. He testified that he had
also clicked the photographs of the driver as well as the truck at the
spot, being Ex P1, duly supported by the certificate Ex PW5/A. He
identified the accused correctly in court during his testimony. He
further testified that he asked the accused to park the offending vehicle
on the side of the road, but the accused fled away from the spot along
with the vehicle. In his cross examination, the witness admitted that he
had not seen the accident, and cannot say if the accused was driving
his vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. He also testified that at the
relevant time, the traffic at the spot of the accident is usually heavy. He
also testified that the car driver had not informed him regarding the
registration number of the offending truck. He denied the suggestion
that he has testified falsely against the accused at the instance of the
IO. Testimony of PW HC Dharmender is merely based on hearsay
evidence. He did not witness the accident, and only apprehended the
accused at the behest of the driver of a car who was passing through
the area. PW5 has neither specified any details of the said car driver,
nor has the latter been made a witness to the case. In fact, PW5 has not
even testified that the car driver told him that he had witnessed the
accident, or could see in the manner in which the accident took place.
In such a circumstance, the testimony of PW5 only to the effect that he
had apprehended the accused does not lend any credence to the case of
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 15 of 19
prosecution.
19. PW3 HC Dharmender testified that he had joined the
investigation of the case on 20.10.2021 along with the IO, and the IO
had recorded the statement of the complainant in his presence. He
testified that in his presence, the IO had also tried to search for CCTV
footage of the incident, but to no avail. In his cross examination, the
witness admitted that he had gone to the spot of the incident as per the
description provided by the complainant in his complaint. He stated
that the IO had enquired from one traffic constable regarding the
incident, but it was found that the traffic constable Dharmender had
stopped the offending vehicle upon the information provided by some
unknown car driver. He testified that the IO never recorded the
statement of any public person. He also testified that the accused was
arrested upon the identification of Ct. Dharmender/PW8. The
testimony of this witness is best construed along with the testimony of
the IO. PW7 IO ASI Sher Mohammad also testified that he received
the information of the accident vide DD no. 67A, and when he reached
the spot, he found Ct. Ghanshyam to be present there along with the
accidental motorcycle. He testified that he was also briefed at the spot
by Ct. Ghanshyam as to how the offending vehicle had been stopped
by Ct. Dharmender, who had also obtained photographs of the vehicle.
He testified that on 20.10.2021, he had recorded the statement of the
injured, Ex PW7/A. He further testified that he then went back to the
spot to search for the CCTV footage of the incident, but no camera was
found to be installed near the place of the incident. He further testified
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 16 of 19
that he seized the vehicle of the complainant vide seizure memo, Ex
PW3/B. He also testified that on 22.10.2021, he along with Ct.
Dharmender went to the house of the owner of the offending vehicle,
which was found to be locked. He further stated that he then served a
notice u/s 133 MV Act upon the owner of the vehicle when he
approached the police station himself, being Ex PW7/B. He testified
that after response to the notice, the accused was traced and arrested
vide arrest memo Ex PW3/A. He also testified that the offending
vehicle was seized by him vide seizure memo Ex PW2/B. In his entire
testimony, the IO has not given any explanation as to why he waited
for two days to search for CCTV footage. While the complainant was
not in a position to give information regarding the accident, as per the
version of the IO himself, he had been informed by Ct. Ghanshyam
and HC Dharmender regarding the accident that had taken place.
Given this fact, the FIR could have been registered swiftly, and the IO
could have made attempt to trace chance witnesses to the accident. In
disregard of the fact that chances of tracing chance witnesses to road
accidents gets bleak by the day, the IO chose to not register the FIR
until a formal complaint was received by him from the injured. Further,
no eyewitnesses to the accident were found by the IO. As already
noted, even the site plan prepared by the IO is shoddy, and does not
help the case of prosecution in any manner. The IO further stated that
he had recorded the statement of HC Dharmender on 22.10.2021 i.e.
four days after the accident, without giving an explanation as to why
the said statement was not recorded immediately after the accident.
Further, he admitted that he recorded the statement of Ct. Ghanshyam
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 17 of 19
who had as per the prosecution story reached the spot of the accident
immediately after the accident occurred, with a delay of about 20 days
on 11.11.2021. No cogent reason for the same has been provided
either. The investigation conducted by the IO seems to be defective in
material ways, and further weakens the case of the prosecution.
20. It can be seen from the scrutiny of the testimonies of the above
witnesses that the prosecution could in no manner prove that the
accused was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently when the
accident occurred. Further, it is pertinent to observe that while the
accused has also been charged for the offence punishable u/s 115/194
MV Act on the allegation that he had entered a ‘No Entry Zone’,
neither the IO nor PW HC Ghanshyam nor the complainant/PW1 Sh.
Prakash Sriwal testified to the effect that the spot where the accident
occurred was a no entry zone, and the accused had wrongly entered the
area. The site plan Ex PW4/A also does not indicate anything to the
said effect. PW6 SI Sandeep testified that the case was marked to him
on 25.01.2021, upon which he collected the MLC of the injured, and
added Section 115/194 MV Act to the charge sheet. The witness failed
to testify why the said penal provision was invoked against the
accused. It merits mention here that in the charge sheet, a letter of the
Traffic Inspector (TE Traffic), bearing no. 8125/TED2/Traffic dated
19.12.2022 has been adverted to. However, the said letter has not been
proved by the prosecution. Neither the author thereof was examined,
nor any other witness asserted the veracity thereof. As a result, the
same cannot be considered against the accused. As such, even for the
State vs. Ram Subhag
FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 18 of 19
offence punishable u/s 115/194 MV Act, not even an iota of evidence
has been brought on record by the prosecution.
21. All in all, it is seen that the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove that the accused was driving his vehicle rashly or negligently, or
that he had entered the ‘No Entry Zone’ at the time of the alleged
incident. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted of all the charges
levelled against him.
22. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance with
Section 437A CrPC.
Digitally
signed by
Pronounced in open Court on
23.07.2025 in the presence Medha Medha Arya
Date:
of accused. Arya 2025.07.23 17:02:25 +0530 (Medha Arya) Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 23.07.2025 State vs. Ram Subhag FIR No. 301/2021, PS: Saket Page 19 of 19