$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 31^st January, 2025 + CRL.L.P. 195/2021 STATE .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Menakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Sachin Panwar, P.S.Fatehpuri and SI Rajender Kumar, P.S.North Avenue.

versus SUDHIR PHAGAAT S/O SH.RAMESHWAR SINGH PHAGAAT, R/O H.NO. 421/3, CHATTARPUR EXTENSION, MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The Leave to Appeal is sought against Judgement dated 22.09.2020 acquitting the respondent of the offences under Section 279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟ hereinafter)

arising out of FIR No. 50/2015 P.S. Fatehpur Beri.

2. The grounds on which the impugned acquittal of the Respondent has been challenged which are essentially that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have not been considered in the right perspective and it has been erroneously concluded that no case under Section 279/337/338 IPC, was made out.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

3. Submissions Heard.

4. For the reasons stated in the Application, the Leave to Appeal is hereby allowed.

Crl. Appeal No........./2025 (to be numbered by the Registry)

5. Appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C‟ hereinafter) has been filed against the judgment dated 22.09.2020 vide which the Respondent-Sudhir Phagaat has been acquitted for the offences under Sections

279/337/338 IPC in FIR No.50/2015, P.S. Fatehpur Beri.

6. Briefly stated, the Respondent was alleged to have been driving his vehicle bearing No. DL-3CBV-8433 in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road and struck against an Accord Car bearing No. DL-2CM-5193 resulting in simple injury to Tushar Arora, driver of Honda Accord vehicle and grievous injury to Vipin Dagar, co-passenger travelling with the Respondent Sudhir Phagaat, in his Swift Dzire car.

7. FIR No.50/2015 was registered against the Respondent. After investigation the chargesheet got filed on 29.10.2015. Charges under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was framed to which the Respondent pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 10 Prosecution witnesses in all which included two eye witnesses. PW.2, Sh. Tushar Arora categorically deposed about the manner of accident and narrated that the Respondent was driving his vehicle on the wrong side of the road and caused the accident. PW-3, Sh. Vipin Dagar Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed identified the Respondent correctly as being the driver of the offending vehicle.

8. The grounds of challenge to the acquittal of the Respondent are that the observations made by the learned M.M are not commensurate to the evidence led by the prosecution. The judgment is based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures and do not stand the scrutiny of law. The testimony of PW-2 has not been appreciated correctly. He had fully supported the case of the prosecution about the vehicle being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the Respondent at a speed and causing the accident by hitting into the Accord car.

9. The testimony of PW-2, eye witness was fully corroborated by his medical record which also has not been considered. The testimony of PW-2 & 3 was fully corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, despite which the benefit has been given to the Respondent who has been acquitted.

10. It is contended that Section 279 IPC uses the phrase “in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life” which implies that the act of the accused can be rash or negligent and both are not required to be present simultaneously. The testimony of PW-3 Vipin Dagar clearly establishes that the vehicle was being driven at a high speed despite him having told the driver Respondent to drive it slowly. He also admitted that the road was slippery due to the rain. He denied the suggestion that the vehicle was being driven at a normal speed. It is clear from the testimony of PW-3 that due to rain the roads Signature Not Verified