Appellate courts must uphold acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove rashness or negligence, reinforcing the principle of double presumption of innocence.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 26.02.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (South-West), Dwarka Courts in proceedings arising out of FIR No. 36/2012, P.S. Baba Haridas Nagar, registered under Section s 279 /337/304A IPC , whereby the respondent was acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is that on 17.02.2012 at about 3:00 p.m. near Sultan Garden Colony on Nangloi-Najafgarh Road, the respondent was allegedly driving a Gramin Sewa Magic bearing No. DL-2W-2937 at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, when he struck against a scooter bearing No. HR-30A-9979 being driven by Jaswant Singh. On the scooter were his wife Rekha and daughter Gunjan. Due to the impact, Jaswant and Rekha succumbed to injuries, while Gunjan sustained grievous injuries.

3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined around 13 witnesses. PW1 Subhash was the complainant and sole eyewitness. PW2 Kishore Kumar and PW4 Met Ram identified the dead bodies. PW3 Ajay Kumar, the owner of the Gramin Sewa, responded to notice under Section 133 MV Act. PW5 Puran Chand conducted mechanical inspection of the Gramin Sewa and scooter. PW10 Dr. B.B. Sinha proved the MLCs. PW12 Dr. Parvinder Singh conducted the post-mortem. The remaining witnesses were formal in nature and deposed about the various aspects of investigation.

The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that his vehicle had broken down due to a CNG leak, and that he had parked it on the side of the road and gone to fetch a mechanic. Upon returning with the mechanic, he found the vehicle missing. He claimed false implication and did not lead any evidence.

4. PW1/Subhash is the linchpin eyewitness of the prosecution case. However, his testimony suffers from glaring inconsistencies that undermine its very foundation. In his initial statement exhibited as Ex.PW1/A recorded at the hospital, PW1 stated that the Gramin Sewa came from behind at a very high speed, crossed his motorcycle, and struck the scooter with great force, running over all three occupants – Jaswant, Rekha and Gunjan. He also alleged that the driver stopped some distance ahead and then fled. In his examination-in-chief on 14.12.2012, PW1 shifted. He deposed that the Gramin Sewa crossed his motorcycle “at a very high speed” and hit the scooter, as a result of which Jaswant fell on the road and the driver of the Gramin Sewa “ruled him” and stopped just ahead of the spot. Nothing has been stated as to what happened to the wife and daughter who were riding pillion. In his further deposition on 16.09.2013, PW1 stated that the scooter was about 150 meters ahead of his motorcycle and that the Gramin Sewa was just behind the scooter. This is contradictory to his earlier version that the vehicle had overtaken him before hitting the scooter. He further stated that “many people were gathered there” at the spot. Yet, despite such availability, no independent witness was examined. Importantly, PW1 admitted in cross-examination that after 20 minutes of the accident, he left for the hospital and did not visit the spot thereafter. This is wholly inconsistent with the IO’s testimony that the site plan was prepared at PW1’s instance. The site plan itself bears no signature of PW1.

The accident allegedly occurred at about 3:00 p.m. on 17.02.2012. However, the FIR came to be registered only after 6:00 p.m., with a delay of nearly three hours. PW1 has admitted in his cross-examinati