Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 3579
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
Raghbir Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 1950 of 2016 & Crl. M.A. No. 8278 of 2016 (Stay)
Decided On : 22-09-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arvind Chaudhary
For the Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan
The duty of the Investigating Officer to re-examine witnesses if the investigation findings do not support the initial statements.
Headnote:
FIR - Traffic Accident - IPC 279/304A - 156(3), 173(1) CrPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a traffic accident where the son of the petitioner died. The initial statement of the eyewitness implicated the driver of a crane, but subsequent investigation and FSL reports did not support this version.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation report was accepted based on the FSL reports and mechanical inspections, and the second statement of the eyewitness was re-examined during the investigation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the acceptance of the cancellation report, the recording of the second statement of the eyewitness, and the procedure followed by the courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the Investigating Officer to re-examine witnesses if the investigation findings do not support the initial statements. It also highlighted the various options available to the Magistrate upon receipt of a complaint under CrPC.
Final Decision: The impugned order accepting the cancellation report was set aside, and the court directed the examination of the eyewitness before reaching a conclusion.
Mukta Gupta, J.
1. Case FIR No. 480 of 2007 under Sections 279/304A IPC was registered at PS Moti Nagar in which it was reported that son of the petitioner namely Kuljeet Singh died.
2. During the course of investigation statement of Ajay Kumar who claimed himself to be an eye witness was recorded who stated that on 7th August, 2007 at about 7.40 CM while his child was boarding the bus bearing No. DL-1PB-2453 for the school, he noticed that a traffic police crane bearing No. DL-1L-0611 was going towards Moti Nagar from Punjabi Bagh at a speed of 60-70 Km per hour and was at a distance of 30 feet from the bus. He also noticed that one motorcycle bearing No. DL-4SBJ-2805 was also coming in the said direction ahead of the crane. The motorcycle was hit from behind by the crane due to which the motorcycle rider fell down and the motorcycle dragged and hit the right backside of the DTC bus due to which damage was caused to the DTC bus. It was alleged that the accident took place due to rash, negligent and speedy driving of the driver of the crane ASI Ombir Singh. Crime team from the FSL Rohini was called at the spot which collected the sample of earth control and paint from the motorcycle, DTC bus and the crane. The place was photographed. As per the crime team’s scene report received on 14th August, 2007 the experts opined that on examination of the vehicles, the collision had taken place with great impact by the left front side of the motorcycle to the rear right corner of the bus and greenish striated marks were found on the left side of the fuel tank of the motorcycle. It also opined that the height of the dent formation on the metallic sheet of the bus was found consistent with the height of the corresponding parts of the damaged motorcycle. No damage was found on the rear or right side of the motorcycle. Further there was no sign of impact on the front side body of the crane. The eye witness noticed the rider of the motorcycle lying 20-25 paces away from the bus.
3. During the course of investigation a further statement of Ajay Kumar was recorded wherein he did not reiterate his earlier version.
4. An untraced report was filed on the basis of the subsequent statement of Ajay Kumar and the crime scene report opining that the bus was stationary and the motorcycle had not been hit by crane as there were no impact marks either on the back of the motorcycle or the front of the crane and the motorcycle hit the bus merely because it was being driven at a high speed. It was also noted that though the crane was coming from the backside however, it did not come in contact with the motorcycle.
5. On this untraced report which was treated as a cancellation report, the petitioner filed a protest petition. The petitioner stated that the second statement of Ajay Kumar was taken under pressure of the police and the Court ought to have taken cognizance on the facts brought out in the charge sheet ignoring the second statement of Ajay Kumar. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate noted that though the first statement of Ajay Kumar implicates ASI Ombir Singh however, the mechanical inspection did not show that the accident took place as stated by Ajay Kumar and it was for the reason that the bus was stationary and the motorcycle came at a high speed. Accepting the cancellation report the learned Trial Court treated the protest petition as a complaint case and listed the matter for examination of Ajay Kumar, the eye witness for pre-summoning evidence on 6th July, 2007.
6. In a revision petition filed by the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide impugned order dated 9th February, 2016 held:-
“9. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that in this case there is a cancellation report filed on the ground that FSL result does not support the prosecution case and also the version of the eye witness Ajay Kumar that crane hit the motorcycle from behind, due to which motorcycle fell down and hit on the rear of t
