Central Reserve Police Force Vs Ranjan Jha @ Sajan Jha (Since Decd Thr Lr) & Anr.

This appeal has been filed by the Central Reserve Police Force (‘ CRPF’ ) assailing the impugned award dated 13^th January 2026 passed by the MACT (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, in MACT No. 376/2024, whereby compensation of Rs. 24,44,364/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum has been awarded.

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:54:45

¶24

Mr. Vinay Yadav , Central Government Standing Counsel, appears on behalf of CRPF and draws attention of this Court to the circumstances in which the accident took place.

¶25

On 28^th January 2024, IO/HC Shamsher Singh received a PCR call regarding an accident and he along with Ct. Rohtas went to the spot near Shani Mandir, Tagore Road, near CRPF Transit Camp, Delhi , where a dead body was lying on footpath.

¶26

Someone from the public informed the IO that some unknown vehicle had hit the deceased. He called the ambulance and sent the body to the hospital. Crime team and the FSL team were called to the spot. Thereafter, a site plan was prepared, and the MACT department was informed. 5. Later, the case was transferred to the new IO, SI Bijender Singh, who issued a notice to the CRPF Transit Camp seeking the CCTV footage. However, as the CCTV footage was retained only for a period of 24 hours, the same was no longer available for examination by the MACT. 6. On 31^st January 2024, the IO visited the place of incident and found that the accident was caused by a CRPF bus. Thereafter, on 08^th March 2024, the crime team was again called to collect the skid marks of the tyres of the offending vehicle, which were taken and sent to FSL for examination. Thereafter, the IO also ascertained the identity of the drivers of the vehicles that had entered through. Further investigation ensued, and on 07^th March 2024, the offending vehicle bearing number JH-01AU-3102 was seized; mechanical inspection was done; a draft charge-sheet was prepared, as also the DAR.

¶27

Siraj Ali was examined as PW4 ; however, he turned hostile and stated that he had not witnessed the accident. The MACT, while examining the issue of negligence and the involvement of the offending vehicle, noted the

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:54:45

¶30

submissions of the CRPF, which asserted that there was no evidence to establish the nexus between the offending vehicle and the accident. The MACT then examined the matter and recorded its analysis and findings in paragraph nos. 28 to 39 of the impugned award.

¶31

Essentially, the MACT noticed that the information regarding the accident was recorded vide GD No. 31A, which showed that an unknown vehicle had caused the accident. The charge-sheet showed that involvement of the offending vehicle was suggested by the eyewitness, Siraj Ali. However, when he appeared in the witness box as PW4 , he stated that he had not witnessed the accident. 9. The spot of the accident is the area before the CRPF gate. The IO, SI Bijender Singh / PW3 stated that no other vehicles, except CRPF vehicles, were permitted to enter the premises. The MACT analysed this evidence and observed that it stood corroborated by the photographs and the site plan of the spot filed along with the charge-sheet. These would bear out that the gate seems to be in a bend in the road and that any vehicle intending to access the gate has to come off the main road. The MACT observed that, particularly during the early morning hours when the accident occurred, the probability of any vehicle other than a CRPF vehicle being involved was minimal.

¶32

The IO had taken information regarding the vehicles which had gone in and out of the gate between 02.00 a.m. and 05.00 a.m. During that period, three vehicles had exited the gate, of which two had returned. 11. The tyres of those vehicles were then matched with the skid marks found at the spot. On the basis of this evidence, the filing of the charge-sheet against the driver, and by placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranjeet and Another v. Abdul Kayam Neb and Anr. SLP no.10351/19 decided on 25^th February 2025, the MACT concluded on the

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:54:45

¶35

touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities and by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur , that the death of the deceased was caused due to the driving of the offending vehicle and accordingly, compensation was awarded.

¶36

Mr. Vinay Yadav , CGSC, has drawn the attention of the Court to the FSL report dated 02^nd April 2024, which notes that the date of visit to the crime scene was 08^th March 2024 for vehicle inspection. The report states that the vehicle, a TATA bus, was found parked within the premises of the CRPF Transit Camp.

¶37

Mr. Vinay Yadav , CGSC, pointed out that the report stated that “ after examination of the said vehicle, no forensic material was recovered ”. 14. However, reliance on this report is of little assistance to the appellant, considering that the examination was done after three months of the accident having taken place. In any event, considering that the allegation was that the CRPF bus had run over the deceased, the possibility of recovering any forensic material from the bus was virtually impossible, particularly after such a lapse of time. This was not a case involving a collision between two vehicles, which would have left certain accident marks on the vehicle.

¶38

Accordingly, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the MACT, and the appeal stands dismissed. 16. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶39

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶40

JULY 7, 2026/sm/ bp

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/07/2026 at 10:54:45

Central Reserve Police Force v. Ranjan Jha @ Sajan Jha (Since Decd Thr Lr) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Central Reserve Police Force v. Ranjan Jha @ Sajan Jha (Since Decd Thr Lr) & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lelu Singh & Ors. Vs M/S Paras Travels Line & Ors.

Prakash Sriwal Vs Ram Subhag & Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mithlesh Devi & Ors.

Smt. Charu Gahlot & Anr. Vs Shri Sat Prakash & Ors.

Devender Mehto Vs Sh Santosh Gupta & Ors.

Ashok Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mr. Atul Nath & Ors.