Delhi Court frames charges against former DPS student for culpable homicide

At the time of the incident accused was 18 years old and studied in class 12. In this incident, 4 people sleeping on the footpath were hit by the car allegedly driven by the accused.

One of the victims was allegedly dragged by the car after he was strucked under the bumper of the car. The accused was driving the car without a driving licence. His two friends were also there in the car.

Special Judge (NDPS) Ekta Gauba Mann at Tis Hazari court famed charges against Samarth for the offences culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attempt of committing culpable homicide, rash and Negligent driving etc.

The court noted that the accused had tried to flee from the spot after the accident.

"I am of considered view that prima facie all the ingredients for the offence Under sections 279, 308, 304 Part-II IPC read with Section 3, 181 Motor Vehicle Act is made out against accused Samarth. Hence, the accused Samarth be charged accordingly, " the special Judge ordered on November 18.

While framing charges the court also mentioned Article 19 (1)(d) of the Constitution of India in the order which guarantees Fundamental Right of Freedom of Movement to every citizen of India.

"However, Article 19 (5) of Constitution of India empowers the State from making any law imposing, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of said Fundamental Right either in the interest of general public," the court said.

As per the chargesheet, there are allegations that on 20.04.2017 at about 5.30 am, accused Samarth along with his two friends namely Bhavaya Rajpal and Ujjwal Goel were present in the car, which was owned by father of his friend Ujjwal Goel and both his friends were under the influence of liquor on a fun trip and accused Samarth was driving the said car without having a driving license.

It is alleged that accused Samarth while driving the car in a rash and negligent manner had overtaken the complainant Head Constable Krishan and went towards the ITO side and climbed the footpath below the railway bridge and as a result the people sleeping on the footpath were injured and there was a lot of hue and cry.

The court noted, "As a result, three persons in an injured condition were lying on a footpath at the back side of the vehicle and one another person got stuck in the bumper of the front side of the vehicle."

"Even after injuring the three victims at the back of his vehicle and one victim stuck in the front bumper of the car and after appreciating the situation," it added.

The court also pointed out the conduct of the accused, who after having hit so many human beings and after seeing the body scattered around he only thought of his own safety and attempted to escape along with the vehicle regardless of the fact that one victim was stuck in the front of bumper of his vehicle and other three victims were lying in an injured condition at the back side of his vehicle.

"He still did not stopped the car. But, tried to flee along with the car and added to the miseries of the victims and as a result, reversed his car and further crushed the three injured victims on back side of the car and dragged one of the victim stuck in the car for 10-15 feet and caused his death on the spot as well as the death of the other injured victim in the hospital and caused serious injuries to the other two victims with the knowledge that his act is going to cause death as well as the said serious injuries," the court added.

While dismissing the application seeking discharge of accused the court held, "His knowledge that his said act was likely to cause death has crossed the arena of "rash and negligent act simpliciter" and entered into the arena of causing death "with the knowledge that his act is likely to cause death" covered under the definition of "culpable homicide not amounting to murder"."

"So, I do not find any merit in application of accused for discharge. Hence, application of accused for discharge is hereby dismissed," the special judge ordered.

It was the contention of the accused that the accident happened due to bursting of the tyre and even the IO has filed the DAR before the MACT Court, it added.

The court said that these contentions of the accused could only be considered at the stage of trial as at the stage of charge any defence taken by the accused could not be considered.

At this stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence, the court said. (ANI)