Man booked for causing death due to rash driving walks free

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 28

Finding contradictions in the statements of witnesses, Sanjay, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandigarh, has acquitted an accused facing the charge of causing death of a person due to rash driving.

The police had booked Bhag Singh, a resident of Panchkula, for the offences committed under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC after a person, Parmanand, was killed in a road accident on April 25, 2017 at the Sector 49/50 light point, Chandigarh.

The police registered the case against the accused on the complaint of a person, Rachit Arya. As per the prosecution, Arya told the police that the accident took place at 10.45 pm. He said his neighbour, Parmanand, a resident of Pushpac Complex, was ahead of him on his scooter at the light point when the traffic signal was red.

A tipper driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the Colony No. 5 light point and hit the scooter of Parmanand. As a result, his Parmanand fell on the road and his head got crushed under the wheels of the tipper.

On the basis of the statement, an FIR was registered against the accused, Bhag Singh. After the completion of investigation, a challan was presented in the court against the accused.

The accused was charged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

While the public prosecutor claimed that Parmanand died due to the rash driving by Bhag Singh, defence counsel Anil Sharma denied the charges and claimed that the accused was falsely implicated in the case.

After hearing the arguments, the court said there was a contradiction in the statements of the main witness, Rachit Arya, and the investigating officer (IO).

“In his cross-examination, Arya deposed that he knew Parmanand as he was his neighbour and was residing adjoining his house. He deposed that he did not know the date when the accident took place. He deposed that Parmanand was driving the scooter, but he did not know the registration numbers of the scooter and the truck,” the court said in the order.

The court said the deposition of the complainant and the investigating officer was contrary. The complainant had not supported his own deposition. He failed to explain how the accused acted in a rash and negligent manner while driving his vehicle. The IO also failed to bring evidence for proving rash and negligent driving on part of the accused. No doubt the complainant and the IO had clearly deposed about the identity of the accused and that was not much in dispute. But the second most important negligence of the offence had not been proved by the IO in accordance with law.

“In view of this, the prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him by extending benefit of doubt,” the court said.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.