Chandigarh man acquitted in rash driving case after 4 years

Chandigarh, June 24

The presumption of rashness or negligence cannot be drawn and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the same through proper or trustworthy evidence. While observing this, a local court has acquitted a person, Yash Pal Ahuja, a resident of Chandigarh, in an alleged rash driving case registered four years ago.

Proper evidence required to prove negligence

The presumption of rashness or negligence cannot be drawn and it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the same through evidence. While observing this, a local court acquitted a person in an alleged case f rash driving on a complaint of a person named Arjun Parsad of Sector 52, Chandigarh, in 2020. He said a car hit his scooter from the rear side due to which he and his wife fell down on the road.

The police had registered a case against the accused on a complaint of a person named Arjun Parsad of Sector 52, Chandigarh, in 2020. He had told the police that he was working at the Haryana Secretariat, Chandigarh. On the day of the accident he was going along with his wife on a scooter.

When he reached near Matka Chowk, a car hit his scooter from the rear side due to which he and his wife fell down on the road. His wife suffered injuries on her feet and on her head. He alleged that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving.

After completion of the investigation, the police filled the charge-sheet against the accused. Following framing of charges under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC against the accused, the latter pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

The public prosecutor argued that the prosecution had proved the case beyond any doubt with regard to rash driving. On the other hand, the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused argued that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the case against the accused. He further argued that the place where the alleged accident had taken place was a very busy road and there was no possibility of high speed, rash and negligent driving at that place. He also said the vehicle inspection reports proved that the scooter had hit the car from behind.

After hearing of the arguments the court said the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused with regard to reckless and negligent driving. Besides, no speed radar had been installed at the spot, which could prove otherwise.

From perusal of the mechanical examination report, it cannot be said that the car driver hit the scooter from the rear side, but it was the other way round. The photographs also show that the car had no scratch marks in the front portion. In view of these records, the accused is hereby acquitted off the charges levelled against him.