JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “Cr.P.C.”) is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 08.09.2015 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in connection with FIR No. 245/10 registered at Police Station Ambedkar Nagar, Delhi for the offence punishable under Sections 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (In short “IPC”).

2. The prosecution case in brief in that on 20.08.2010, Head Constable Rameshwar, received DD No. 28A and he accordingly proceeded with Constable Mahavir Prasad (PW-1) to the place of the accident i.e., M.B. Road in front of old petrol pump, where, motor cycle bearing no. DL-3SBJ-8795 (in short “accidental motorcycle”) and bus bearing no. DL-1PB-9178 (in short “offending bus”) were found present. The injured was also found lying near the motor cycle, who was then moved to AIIMS hospital in government vehicle bearing no. DL-1CM-1624 by PW-1. Constable Balram (“Complainant”) was found present at the spot whose statement was recorded with regard to the accident and his statement formed the substratum for registration of the present FIR. In the hospital, MLC No. 223591/10 of injured Raj Kumar Rawat (“deceased”) was collected. However, he was declared brought dead. During the course of investigation, a non-scaled site plan was prepared. Notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (“MV Act”) was given to the owner of the offending bus Rajat Maurya (PW-4) who produced the driver Shiv Narain Chaudhary (“accused”) who was then arrested. It is alleged that since the respondent/accused was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently so as to endanger the human life or to be likely to cause injury to other persons, FIR for offences punishable under Sections 279/304A of the IPC was registered against him. After investigation, the police filed the chargesheet.

3. Accused was charged for offence under Sections 279/304A of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. Accordingly, trial was conducted. The learned trial court after appreciating the entire evidence and material available on record acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, the state is in appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the impugned judgment is illegal and improper. According to him, the Learned trial court erred in not relying upon the testimony of the eye-witness i.e., the complainant (PW-2) as the case of prosecution was essentially proved by his testimony. The learned trial court has given undue importance to lack of proof of arrival and departure of the complainant in DD entries from police station, who was on patrol duty at the relevant time even though the defense did not question the witness in the cross-examination with regard to the DD entries. The learned trial court has further erred in failing to appreciate that the accused was apprehended by the eye-witness at the spot and was handed over to the Investigating officer. This aspect was corroborated by the presence of eye-witness and the accused at the spot. According to him, it is proved through the testimony of the complainant that the accused was driving the offending bus. The medical evidence shows that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the said accident. Thus, the ingredients of the offences alleged were duly proved in the facts of the present case. Additionally, undue importance to a delay of seven hours in sending the rukka, more so when the defence failed to ask any question on the aspect of reasons for delay, ought not to have been given.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused vehemently opposes the submissions and submits that the offences have not been committed by the respondent/accused and therefore, the learned trial court has rightly acquitted him. He submits that the learned Metropolitan Magistrat