$~12 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 06.03.2025 + CRL.L.P. 110/2018 & CRL.M.A. 2771/2018 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP SI Sunder Singh, PS Nangloi versus KAPTAN SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Ms. Sana Juneja, Ms. Deepshikha, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL

1. This is a petition seeking grant of leave to appeal against acquittal vide judgment and order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the learned MM-03, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in FIR No. 353/2011 registered at P.S. Naglaoi under Sections 279/338 of IPC.

2. Mr. Singh, learned APP states that in the present case, the learned MM has failed to appreciate the testimony of the PW-5 who is an eye witness who stated that the truck was being driven in a heavy congested area at the speed of 60 km/h.

3. To my mind, the issue needs consideration.

4. For the said reasons, the application for leave to appeal is allowed and disposed of.

Digitally Signed CRL.L.P. 110/2018 Page 1 of 10 CRL.A. / 2025 (TO BE NUMBERED)

5. Let the appeal be registered.

6. Issue notice. Mr. Maqbool, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and requests that the appeal be taken up for hearing today.

7. With consent of parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing today.

8. In the present case, the facts are that on 08.12.2011 at about 2:19 p.m.

near Soorajmal Stadium, the respondent (accused) was driving truck bearing registration No. HR 63A 1481 which collided with the Rehdi of the victim namely Ram Avtar Mishra.

9. The left foot of the victim came under the truck, as a result, the victim suffered a fracture.

10. It is alleged that the truck bearing registration No. HR 63A 1481 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner to endanger human life and personal safety.

11. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and the charges were framed under Section 279 and 338 of IPC on 19.02.2013.

12. The respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

13. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. 14. The testimonies of the PW-3 i.e. the victim and PW-5 i.e. eye witness are important and read as under:-

“PW - 3 Statement of Sh. Ram Avtar Mishra S/o Sh. Suraj Narain (recalled for cross-examination after 07.05.2015).

On SA XXXXXX by Sh. Hitesh Kumar, Ld. LAC for the accused.

Digitally Signed CRL.L.P. 110/2018 Page 2 of 10 . . . . . . . I had not shown the place of occurrence to the police and they had prepared site plan as per their own instance. I do not remember whether how many and which other police officials were also present at the spot of incident except PCR officials. I had not called the police. PCR came within 10-15 minutes of incident. I was on the extreme left side of my road at the time of incident. The one side of road after the divider was around 50 feet. It is wrong to suggest that I was positioned at the middle of the road proceeding towards the driver side. There was no proper service road adjacent to that road at that point of time as construction work was going on. It is wrong to suggest that there was proper service road adjacent to the road in question. My Rehdi was filled with rice and wheat at the time of incident and both were around 35 kg in weight and were in plastic kattas. Some portion of wheat and rice were scattered at the spot of incident. I do not remember whether rice and wheat were seized by IO or not. I was never taken to spot of incident by police official. It is wrong to suggest that I sustained injuries due to my fault as I was negligent in this case. It is wrong to suggest that the accused was driving his vehicle properly and in proper manner and incident happened only due to fact that I was going in middle of the road. It is correct that one red-light was near to the spot of incident. It is correct that there remains huge traffic and the vehicles are generally at low speed. No public person was requeste