$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 10.02.2025 + CRL.L.P. 240/2022 & CRL.M.A. 10294/2022 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aashneet Singh, APP SI Santosh, PS Mukherjee Nagar ASI Umesh Kumar, PS S.P. Badli versus DILIP KUMAR KHANNA .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL CRL.L.P. 240/2022

1. This is a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated

13.11.2019 passed by learned ACMM, (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi, in C.C. No. 5281159/2016 arising out of F.I.R. No. 377/2009 dated 14.11.2009 registered at P.S. Mukherjee Nagar, wherein the respondent was acquitted for offences under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.11.2009 at about 08.00 PM, the respondent was driving a motorcycle bearing registration no. DL- 4S-AL-7777 and allegedly struck one bicycle as a consequence of which the cyclist (deceased) sustained fatal injuries.

3. The F.I.R. was registered on the complaint of the son of the deceased.

Digitally Signed CRL.L.P. 240/2022 Page 1 of 10 After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the respondent for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution examined a total of 9 witnesses and the statement of the accused/respondent under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded, wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case by a police official. The respondent also examined 1 witness in his defence.

5. The learned ACMM after considering the entire evidence, acquitted the respondent under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned judgement, the State has filed the present appeal.

7. Mr. Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the petitioner challenges the impugned judgement and submits that in the present case, PW-4 and PW-10 are the eyewitnesses who have deposed that the respondent was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner being driven at the speed of 60 km/ph, which resulted in the death of the motorcycle rider (deceased). Thus, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned judgement and submits that the prosecution has not led any cogent evidence to prove its case against the respondent and the presence of the both the eye witnesses of the prosecution at the spot of occurrence is doubtful, in view of the fact that the both the eye witnesses have made several mutually contradictory statements about the manner in which the Digitally Signed CRL.L.P. 240/2022 Page 2 of 10 offending vehicle was being driven at the time of occurrence of the alleged accident in the present matter.

9. I have heard learned counsel of the parties and perused the material on record.

10. The operative paragraph of the impugned judgment reads as under:

“21.⁠ ⁠In the light of afore-cited provisions of section 279/304A of IPC, it can be safely concluded that in order to hold any person guilty for the commission of offences punishable under section 279/304A IPC, firstly, it is imperative for prosecution to establish the identity of the offending vehicle and its driver beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, prosecution is required to establish that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the accused. Thirdly, prosecution is expected to prove that the act of the accused of driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner was the proximate and most immediate cause of the fatal injuries sustained by the victim of the accident in question. In other words, prosecution is expected to prove that the fatal injuries detected on the person of the victim had emanated from the act of the accused of driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

22. In the present case the two material witnesse