Mahaveer Prasad v. State of NCT of Delhi

1. The present criminal revision petition is filed under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) to set aside the judgment dated 25.08.2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”) passed by the court of Sh. V.K. Bansal, Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 2 Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the appellate court”) in Criminal Appeal bearing no. 28/2006 titled as Mahaveer Prasad V State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) against the judgment dated 10.05.2006 and order on sentence dated 20.05.2006 passed by the court of Sh. Manish Yadhuvanshi, Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in case arising out of the FIR bearing no.229/1998 registered under sections 279/337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) read with sections 3/181/185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 at PS Kotla Mubarakpur.

2. The relevant facts as reflected from the impugned judgment passed by the trial court are that SI Dinesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as “the Investigating Officer”) along with Ct. Subhash after receipt of DD bearing no. 18A dated 07.06.1998 recorded at PS Kotla Mubarakpur regarding an accident went to the spot where he found one Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 3SP 1609 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) was lying in an accidental condition. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer went to AIIMS Hospital where he found that the injured Ramshree was under CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 3 treatment. The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Satya Prakash Gupta who was son-in-law of the injured (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) wherein stated that he along with Ramshree/injured was returning from house of relative situated at 951, Nehru Road, Arjun Nagar on 07.06.1998 at around 10:20 pm and while crossing BP Marg, near Defence Colony then a motorcycle bearing no DL 3SP 1069 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) which was being driven by a police officer in a rash and negligent manner in the wrong direction hit Ramshree. The complainant along with Ramshree fell down on the road due to the collision as a result of which Ramshree sustained injuries. PCR removed Ramshree and the complainant to AIIMS hospital. Thereafter, the present FIR bearing no.229/1998 was got registered under sections 279/337 IPC read with sections 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) on the basis of the statement made by the complainant. The Investigating Officer conducted further investigation. Ramshree (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) died during the treatment and the postmortem on dead body of the deceased was conducted. The CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 4 Investigating Officer added section 304A IPC in place of section 337 IPC due to the death of the deceased. The driver during investigation was found under the influence of alcohol and could not produce his Driving License which resulted in addition of section 185 of the MV Act. The driver was arrested and was identified as Mahavir Prasad (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”). The charge sheet after conclusion of investigation was filed on 05.11.2009. The concerned court had taken the cognizance and after complying with section 207 of the Code, notice under section 251 of the Code was given to the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279/304A IPC read with sections 3/181/185 of the MV Act vide order dated 28.08.2000 to which the petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner examined 13 witnesses including the complainant as PW[3] and the Investigating Officer as PW12. The statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313 of the Code read with section 281 of the Code wherein the petitioner pleaded innocence and false implication. The petitioner also stated that no accident was caused by him. The accident caused by a government vehicle bearing registration no. DL 1CF 2449 being CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 5 driven by the SHO, PS Kotla Mubarakpur namely Dhanvir Dutt who was coming from wrong direction and hit the deceased. SHO also hit motorcycle being driven by the petitioner as SHO was driving his vehicle at very fast speed and in rash and negligent manner. The petitioner also received injuries and the complainant was not present at spot. The petitioner further stated that the deceased and a child were only present at the spot. The petitioner was falsely implicated at the instance of the SHO Dhanvir Dutt. The petitioner was going to Police Station Lodhi Colony where he was posted at that time at about 9.30/9.45 pm. The accident was caused by the Govt. Gypsy bearing no DL-lCF-2449 being driven by the SHO Dhanvir Dutt who was coming from the wrong side from Andrews Ganj and going towards Sewa Nagar Flyover and he struck against an old lady while driving the Gypsy on a wrong side.The petitioner preferred to lead defence evidence and examined Chain Singh as DW[1]. 2.[1] The trial court vide judgment dated 10.05.2006 convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 279/304A IPC read with sections 3/181/185 of the MV Act. The trial court vide order on sentence dated 20.05.2006 sentenced the petitioner to CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 6 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year i.e., 12 months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 13 days for the offence punishable under section 279 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days for the offence punishable under sections 3/181 of the MV Act. The petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 02 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 07 days for the offence punishable under section 185 of the MV Act. The trial court ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 2.[2] The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.05.2006 and the order on sentence dated 20.05.2006 passed by the trial court CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 7 preferred a Criminal Appeal bearing no. 28/2006 titled as Mahaveer Prasad V State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) which was ordered to be dismissed by the appellate court vide impugned judgment dated 25.08.2007.

3. The petitioner challenged the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2007 passed by the appellate court by filing the present petition on grounds that it is contrary to law. The appellate court has not considered evidence in accordance with law and has not relied upon the DW[1] Chain Singh who was a public eye-witness who stated that the alleged accident was caused by the police gypsy. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident was caused by the petitioner. The appellate court over looked that most of PWs were related to each other and were under total influence of the then SHO Sh. D.V. Dutt. PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta was a planted witness. PW[9] Vimla Kohli turned out to be a hostile witness. PW[4] in the departmental enquiry stated that the injured lady was removed to the hospital in police gypsy.The trial court has failed to appreciate PCR report which stated that SHO Kotla Mubarakpur was present on the spot of the accident on 07.06.1998 and the injured Ramshree was CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 8 sent to the hospital in the said gypsy which was contrary to the statement of the SHO Kotla Mubarakpur during departmental enquiry wherein stated that the vehicle bearing no. DL 1CF 2449 was not in working condition on 07.06.1998 but DD no. 36B dated 08.06.1998 shows that the vehicle plied on the road on 08.06.1998. The commission of offence under section 185 of the MV Act cannot sustain since there was no evidence that the petitioner had consumed alcohol. The commission of offences under sections 3/181 of the MV Act also cannot sustain since the petitioner was holding a valid Driving Licence bearing no. P 97070435 dated 23.07.1997 on the day of the accident with validity upto 22.07.2002. The statement of the eye-witness PW10 Manish Kumar cannot be relied upon as it is full of confusion. The trial court has erred in relying on the statement of the planted eye-witness PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta who could not clear the fact about the presence of a child with the deceased at the time of the accident. The trial court failed to appreciate the testimony of the PW[8] Constable Subhash who stated that he reached on the spot of the accident along with the Investigating Officer who did not record any statement as no one claimed to be the eye-witness. There CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 9 are several contradictions in the respective statements of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. It was prayed that the impugned judgment dated 25.08.2007 be aside and the petitioner be acquitted.

4. The prosecution during trial in support of its case examined the complainant as PW[3] who deposed that on he along with the deceased were returning from their relative’s house at 951, Nehru Road, Arjun Nagar on 07.06.1998 at around 10:20 PM and while crossing BP Marg, near Defence Colony, the offending vehicle which was being driven by a police officer in a rash and negligent manner in the wrong direction hit the deceased Ramshree. The complainant along with the deceased fell down on the road due to the collision as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries. The petitioner was apprehended at the spot. PW3/the complainant also identified his signature on statement Ex.PW3/A. The prosecution examined as PW[5] who mechanically inspected the offending vehicle vide report Ex.PW5/A. The prosecution also examined PW[4] Dr. T Milo identified the signatures of Dr. Vipin Chawla who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 08.06.1998 vide report CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 10 Ex. PW4/A and opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and the cause of the death was due to hemorrhage shock due to blunt force impact. PW12/Investigating Officer deposed about the modalities of the investigation conducted by him.

5. The counsel for the petitioner advanced oral arguments and submitted written synopsis wherein it was stated that the petitioner in the present case was falsely implicated as an accused as the accident was not caused by him. The accident was caused by the then serving SHO of the PS Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi who to save him from the criminal liability implicated the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded innocence in statement recorded under section 313 of the code and asserted that the accident was caused by the police gypsy bearing no. DL1CF 2449 being driven by the then SHO Dhanvir Dutt, PS Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. SHO Dhanvir Dutt came from the wrong side and first hit the deceased and thereafter hit the motor cycle of the petitioner. The petitioner after that incident got injured seriously and was hospitalized and the petitioner after being recovered went to the police station to lodge the complainant which was not registered. CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 11 5.[1] Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the complainant/PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta claiming to be the eye witness and son-in-law of the deceased lady was never present on the spot when the incident pertaining to the present case had happened and testimony of DW[1] reflects that the police gypsy who was coming from the wrong side from Andrews Ganj and going towards Sewa Nagar Flyover had caused the accident by hitting the deceased and then the gypsy ran away from the spot and another police gypsy came and took the injured lady and the child to the hospital. The trial court has erred in passing the impugned order as passed without appreciating the deposition of the DW[1]. 5.[2] It was also argued that contention of the prosecution that the gypsy bearing no. DL 1CF 2449 was off road and as such was not driven by the SHO on the relevant date and time was a false assertion. DD entry no. 36B recorded by the Inspector DV Dutt made it clear that the SHO was on Ilaqa Gasht (patrolling duty in area). The petitioner was falsely framed by the SHO DV Dutt. 5.[3] It was also argued that as per the postmortem report bearing NO. 571/98 dated 08.06.1998 EX. PW4/A pertaining to the deceased CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 12 cause of death of the deceased victim was hemorrhage shock caused due to the injuries received and ante-mortem injuries were caused by the blunt force but as per the medical jurisprudence the alleged injuries can only be sustained in collusion with a four wheeler only. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on Adambhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri V State of Gujarat, (2014) 7 SCC 716. It was argued that the present revision petition be allowed.

6. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State argued that the testimony of PW3/complainant was sufficient to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner can be convicted only on the basis of the testimony of PW3/complainant. It was argued that there is no reason to interfere with the judgment dated 10.05.2006 and order on sentence dated 20.05.2006 passed by the trial court andthe impugned judgment dated 25.08.2007 passed by the appellate court. The present petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Section 279 IPC deals with rash driving or riding on a public way. It reads as under:-

279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.—Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 13 punished with im-prisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 304A IPC deals with causing death by negligence. It reads as under:- 304A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 7.[1] The Supreme Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyan V State of Andhra Pradesh, (2007)7SCC72 about rashness and negligence observed as under:- A rash act is primarily an over hasty act. It is opposed to a deliberate act. Still a rash act can be a deliberate act in the sense that it was done without due care and caution. Culpable rashness lies in running the risk of doing an act with recklessness and with indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise duty with reasonable and proper care and precaution guarding against injury to the public generally or to any individual in particular. It is the imperative duty of the driver of a vehicle to adopt such reasonable and proper care and precaution.

8. The trial court and the appellate court primarily relied on testimony of PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta who as per prosecution was CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 14 eye witness of the accident and happened to be son-in-law of the deceased. A witness in a criminal trial has pivotal role to play and is an important component in determining the truth. A witness generally has relevant information about commission of crime and the role of a witness is paramount in the Criminal Justice System. The judicial process needs witnesses to give evidence so that courts can reach at a verdict or decision. The witness by deposing in courts assists the court in discovering truth. The witnesses are important partner in the dispensation of justice. The Supreme Court in Mahender Chawla V Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No.156/2016 decided on 05th December, 2018 highlighted importance of witness in a trial and observed as under:- Witnesses are important players in the judicial system, who help the judges in arriving at correct factual findings. The instrument of evidence is the medium through which facts, either disputed or required to be proved, are effectively conveyed to the courts. This evidence in the form of documentary and oral is given by the witnesses. A witness may be a partisan or interested witness, i.e., a witness who is in a near relation with the victim of crime or is concerned with conviction of the accused person. Even his testimony is relevant, though, stricter scrutiny is required while adjudging the credence of such a victim. However, apart from these witnesses or the witnesses who may themselves be the victims, other witnesses may not have any personal CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 15 interest in the outcome of a case. They still help the judicial system.

9. The testimony of PW3Satya Prakash Gupta reflects that he along with the deceased was returning from their relative’s house situated at 951, Nehru Road, Arjun Nagar on 07.06.1998 at around 10:20 pm and while crossing BP Marg, near Defence Colony, the offending vehicle which was being driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner came from the wrong direction hit the deceased. PW[3] along with the deceased fell down on the road due to the collision as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and was removed to AIIMS hospital. The defence in cross examination of PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta attempted to establish although unsuccessfully that PW[3] was not an eye witness to the accident and was not accompanied by the deceased. It was also alleged that PW[3] was a planted witness and was not the son-in-law of the deceased. PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta denied the suggestion that he was not accompanying the deceased and that he was the son-in-law of the deceased. PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta also denied the suggestion that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 16 the petitioner and the deceased had expired due to collusion of the police gypsy driven by the SHO Kotla Mubarakpur. The testimony of PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta proved that the petitioner was negligent in taking care towards the deceased which is expected from a person of ordinary and normal prudence. The petitioner was expected to take appropriate care towards the deceased when she was crossing the road. The testimony of PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta amply proved that the petitioner caused the death of the deceased on account of his rash and negligent act and his testimony is corroborated by the testimony of PW10 and PW11 who were also the eye-witnesses to the said accident. The post-mortem report Ex. PW4/A proved that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature consistent with road traffic accidentand that the cause of the death was due to hemorrhage shock due to blunt force impact. There is no factual force in argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that he was not negligent while driving the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle and that the SHO PS Kotla Mubarakpur was the actual offender who caused the accident by driving his police gypsy in a rash and negligent manner and by hitting the deceased and the petitioner. CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 17

10. It was also argued on behalf of the petitioner that the testimony of PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta cannot be relied on as he was a planted witness and pretended to be the son-in-law of the deceased to gain compensation from the death of the deceased. In a criminal trial, it is the quality and not the quantity of evidence, which matters for proving, or disproving a fact and emphasis is laid on quality of evidence rather than multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. The testimony of solitary witness should be cogent, credible and trustworthy. It was observed in Kuna @ SanjayaBehera V State of Odisha, 2017 SCC Online Supreme Court 1336 that the conviction can be based on the testimony of single eye witness if he or she passes the test of reliability and that is not the number of witnesses but the quality of evidence that is important. If the investigation did not include any other person in investigation, it is not fatal to case of prosecution as the testimony of PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta is credible, cogent and does inspire confidence and there is no reason to discard testimony of PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta which is otherwise narrative of true facts. CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 18

11. PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta is the son-in-law of the deceased and as such PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta and deceased were directly related to each other. The witnesses who are related to the victim are as competent to depose the facts as any other witness and mere relationship does not disqualify a witness. The testimony of interested witness is required to be carefully scrutinized and appreciated as a matter of caution.The Supreme Court in Dalip Singh & Others V State of Punjab, (1954) 1 SCR 145 observed as under: Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that here is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. 11.[1] The Supreme Court in Masalti V State of UP, (1964) 8 SCR 133 also observed as under:- There is no doubt that when a criminal court has to appreciate evidence given by witnesses who are partisan or interested, it has to be very careful in weighing such evidence. Whether or not there are discrepancies in the evidence; whether or not the evidence strikes the Court as genuine; whether or not the story disclosed by the evidence is probable, are all matters which must be taken into account. CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 19 But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses….. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice”. There is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. If the evidence of an eyewitness, though a close relative of the victim, inspires confidence, it must be relied upon without seeking corroboration with minute material particulars. It is no doubt true that the Courts must be cautious while considering the evidence of interested witnesses. 11.[2] The Supreme Court in Kartik Malhar V State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 614 also opined that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness and in Thoti Manohar V State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No 1739/2007 decided on 15th May,2012 also observed as under:- We find that the evidence of the injured witnesses who are close relatives to the deceased have really not embellished or exaggerated the case of the prosecution. They are the most natural witnesses and there is nothing on record to doubt their presence at the place of occurrence. By no stretch of imagination, it can be stated that the presence of the said witnesses at the scene of the crime and at the time of occurrence was improbable. Their version is consistent and nothing has been suggested to bring any kind of inherent improbabilities in their testimonies. CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 20 11.[3] PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta happened to be with the deceased on the day and time of accident as they were coming back home together from their relative’s house. If PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta is related to the deceased being his son-in-law, it does not mean that his testimony is liable to be rejected on this ground. In criminal cases court should not adopt mechanical approach in appreciating evidence of prosecution. The testimony of PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta is only required to be scrutinized with care and caution. The testimony of PW[3] is trustworthy, credible and narrative of true facts pertaining to accident and is corroborated by PW10 and PW11 who were also the eye witnesses of the said accident. The plea of the petitioner that the testimony of PW[3] Satya Prakash Gupta being an interested witness cannot be relied on is without any legal substance. The appellate court after appreciating evidence led by the prosecution as made observations which were based on cogent and substantial reasons and are as under:-

7. After hearing the arguments and going through therecord, I found that in the present case the three eye witnesses PW[3], PW10 and PW11 had consistently stated that this accident has been caused by one motorcycle being driven by the appellant. The defence taken is that this accident is not caused by the motorcycle but by the gypsy. CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 21 Appellant has also examined one witness as DW1who also stated that this accident has been caused by one gypsy and not by the motorcycle of theappellant. PW[3] was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and there is no such question put to him that this accident wascaused by the gypsy No.DL ICF 2449 and not by hismotorcycle.Infactit was suggested to the witness that he was not present at the spot and this accident has taken place with the scooter and not with the motorcycle. Keeping in view the testimonies of three eye witnesses,which are consistent on the point that accident is caused by the motorcycle of the accused not with the gypsy coupled with the fact that other records which are on the judicial file also show that this accident has taken place by the motorcycle clearly show that this accident was in between the motorcycle and the lady. The controversy has been raised about DD No.15A and DD No. 18 by the Ld.counsel for the appellant but the record clearly shows that DD No. 15A was recorded on the information given by one Lady Ct. Prabha No.3762/PCR which was sent by SI Dinesh Kumar. This was recorded at 10.30 p.m. and at 10.356 p.m. DD N0.I8A was recorded on the information given by Lady Ct. No.3699/PCR and SI Dinesh Kumar on his return made DD entry No.51 and reported that DD No. 14 and DD No. 15 were found bogus and about DD N0.I8A he has mentioned that case FIR has been registered i.e. the present case. Keeping in view all these facts and the evidence on record, I do not find any merit in the contention that the accident was caused by the gypsy of the SHO.

8. So far as the defence witness is concernedaccording to him he had taken the motorcycle from the spot and took to PS K.M.Pur whereas according to PW12 the motorcycle was on the spot. It is also mentioned in the rukka Ex.PW12/A that when hereached the spot the motorcycle was there and heseized it from the spot. If DW[1] is to be believedthen the motorcycle of the accused should not have been found on the spot. But it should have been seized from CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 22 the police station. There is also nocross examination to the IO PW12 that themotorcycle was not there on the spot and it was in the police station from where he seized it.

9. Keeping in view all these facts, in my opinion DW1is not believable and the defence taken by the accused is nothing but an afterthought. Otherwisewhen PW[3] was examined the defence should have questioned him that the accident was caused by the gypsy of the SHO and not by the accused or withthe motorcycle. Ld.counsel for the appellant hasalso stressed upon the time of accident given bydifferent witnesses. But in my opinion when thereare so many other documents from which time ofaccident can be inferred i.e. DD No.18 which is onrecord vide which the information about theaccident was received was recorded at 10.35 p.m. The MLC of Ramshree according to which she wasbrought to the hospital at 22.47 hours clearly showthat this accident has taken place somewherearound 10.15 to 10.30 p.m. The factum of deathdue to accident is not disputed. The postmortem report also have been proved on record asEX.PW4/A. According to which the cause of death is haemorragic shock due to the above mentionedante mortem injuries caused by blunt force whichcan be seen in case of road traffic accident. Thepresence of the accused on the spot is admitted.The eye witness clearly identified that he is the same person who was driving the vehicle at thetime of accident. One dispute has also been raised whether the deceased was accompanied by PW[3] orby one child. PW[3] is silent as to whether any child was also there at that time. PWIO says that onechild was there with the lady and PW11 is silentabout the person accompanying the lady but thatdoes not in my opinion dislodge the case of theprosecution as the important fact is that how thisaccident has taken place. On this aspect all thethree witnesses are consistent. According to themaccused was driving the motorcycle on the wrongside of the road. The fact that accused was drivingthe vehicle on the wrong side itself shows that hewas rash as well as negligent in his CRL.REV.P. 585/2007 Page 23 driving coupledwith the fact that according to the MLC of theaccused PW4A he was found to be under the influence of liquor when he was brought to thehospital at 11.50 p.m. This fact itself shows thatthe accused has no respect for the traffic rules. He was not only rash and negligent but was also under the Influence of liquor while driving the motorcycle.Ld. Counsel for the appellant had tried to submitthat concentration of liquor In the blood of theaccused Is not ascertained but I found that whenthe doctor has specifically mentioned In the MLC PW4/A that the Injured i.e. accused herein was under the Influence of the liquor and there Is no cross examination to PW[4] on this aspect. Then this contention that blood test had not been conducted has no merit. The accused was also not having the driving license while driving the motorcycle. There is nothing on record that this witness had any enmity with the appellant or had any other reason to falsely Implicate him In the present case. One more controversy was tried to be raised by the accused that PW[3] Is not related to the deceased and he has come Inonly to get the claim but In my opinion a witness cannot be credited or discredited on the strength of his relation with the deceased. Smt. Ramshree according to PW[3] was his mother in law and the defence has not produced anything that he was not son in law of Smt. Ramshree. Simply alleging that he was not related to Ramshree has no meaning unless something material has been brought on record.