The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can impact the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The State has filed the present application seeking leave to appeal against a judgment dated 16.12.2015, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the offence under Section 279 read with Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Trial Court held that there were significant contradictions in the statements of the material witnesses and further that the testimonies did not conform in material aspects. In view of the above, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court also held that the prosecution had failed to prove that PW-7, Smt Munni Devi, who was stated to have witnessed the incident, was an eye-witness as in her cross-examination, she had deposed that she had heard the noise of the impact of the accident and had turned back to see the victim lying on the road. This indicated that she had not witnessed the accident.

2. It is the prosecution's case that there is no ambiguity in the testimony of PW-7. PW-7 had, unequivocally, deposed that she and the deceased were walking on the outer ring road towards their home, and on reaching the red light crossing at C-Block, Saraswati Vihar, they had attempted to cross the road towards Saraswati Vihar, New Delhi. While, they were doing so, a scooter rider came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, and struck the victim due to which she fell down, sustained injuries and became unconscious. She stated that the accused (respondent) had stopped the scooter and disclosed his name. She had stated that he, along with PW-7, took the injured to the hospital. The Learned APP submitted that this testimony clearly established that PW-7 was an eye-witness. The learned APP also drew the attention of this Court to the transcripts of the cross-examination, wherein PW-7 had reiterated that she had seen the accused riding on a scooter. She also stated that she had seen the accident and the respondent colliding with the victim while on his scooter.

3. The respondent was charged with committing an offence under Section 279, read with Section 304-A of the IPC. It was alleged that on 03.11.2001, at about 3.10 p.m., the respondent was riding a motor vehicle (riding a scooter) bearing No. HR-29J-3540, in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and personal safety of others. It is alleged that he caused the death of Smt Sidhanta Devi. The prosecution's case rested essentially on the statement of PW-7, Smt Munni Devi. FIR no. 817/2001 (relating to the incident was registered on the basis of the statement of one Smt Munni Devi (PW-7). She had stated that on the date of the incident, she and the deceased were walking back home by the outer ring road and when they reached the red light at C-Block, Saraswati Vihar, they crossed the road at the red light towards Saraswati Vihar. While they were crossing, a scooter rider, who later identified himself as Rajesh Kumar (respondent), riding the scooter bearing no. HR-29-J-3540 approached at a very fast pace and in a negligent manner, hit the deceased. The deceased fell down and became unconscious. She stated that the scooter stopped and she and the respondent took the deceased to the hospital.

4. In her testimony, which was recorded on 28.07.2011, Smt Munni Devi (PW-7) broadly reiterated the incident. She reiterated that she and the deceased were returning back home on foot and the incident happened while they were crossing the road at the red light located at C-Block, Saraswati Vihar. She reiterated that the scooter rider, who was riding the scooter at a fast speed and in a rash and negligent manner, struck Smt Sidhanta Devi (deceased) due to which she fell down and sustained injuries and became unconscious. She reiterated that the scooter rider (the respondent) stopped and disclosed his name. She also identified the respondent. She reiterated that she, along with the respondent, took Smt Sidhanta Devi to Saroj Hospital. However, she also stated t