This Appeal has been filed under Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 impugning the Judgement dated 21.11.2019, wherein, the Respondent No.1 herein were acquitted by the Ld. Meteropolitan Magistrate under Section 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and convicted Respondent No.2 herein under Section 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The facts pertaining to the present Appeal are: -
  • On 21.04.2016, an individual named Surender Tiwari while going by Cycle was hit by a car, which was driven by Respondent No.1 herein, allegedly in a negligent manner. It was further alleged that after hitting the Complainant, Respondent No.1 fled away from the accident spot.
  • It was submitted by the Complainant that the details of the vehicle was given by the Public. 
  • It was further stated by the Complainant that upon getting injured, he was taken by the PCR and therefore, the FIR was filed after 2 days i.e., on 23.04.2016, out of which the Complaint, whose Order/Judgement has lead to the filing of the present Appeal. 
  • Upon getting the statement recorded by Section 303 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Respondent No.1 denied rash and negligent driving. She also stated that the Complainant hit the car from behind. It was further stated by her that she wanted to help the Complainant and take him to the Hospital but instead he sat in her car and demanded money. Respondent No.1 under pressure of the public gave Rs. 3,500/- to Complainant and left.
  • Based on the said submissions and perusing the file, the Ld. Meteropolitan Magistrate observed that the Prosecution has failed to prove that Respondent No.1 was rash and negligent in driving the car but on the ground that there is no insurance of the car, Ld. Meteropolitan Magistrate convicted Respondent No.2 under Section 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
  • Being aggrieved by the said judgement, the Appellant herein by way of Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2025, approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the ground that that the statement of Complainant/PW1 has been overlooked by the Ld. Meteropolitan Magistrate while passing the Judgement dated 21.11.2019.
  • Thereafter, the arguments were advanced by the parties.
Based on the arguments advanced and submissions made by the parties, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed that the testimony of the of the Complainant has not been able to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by Respondent. Hon'ble Delhi High Court further observed that the Ld. Meteropolitan Magistrate has rightly observed that merely because an accident took place, is not ipso facto a ground to attribute negligence to the Respondent in the absence of any such evidence.

In view of the said observation, Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to dismiss the present Appeal on the ground that the Respondent has rightly been acquitted under Section 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

STATUTES INVOLVED

  • INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
  • CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973
  • MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988
COUNSEL WHO APPEARED
  • Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with I.O. SI Chetan, P.S., Paschim Vihar West
  • Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Upadhyay, Advocate for Respondent No.2
IMPORTANT LINKS
MyLawman is now on Telegram (t.me/mylawman) Follow us for regular legal updates. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter, or join our WhatsApp Group. You can also subscribe to our Newsletter for Email Updates. MyLawman always tries to maintain the accuracy and correctness of the post. MyLawman does not take any responsibility for the accuracy of the Posts. The post has been shared as we received it from our staff and the submission form.