5 years after mishap, one-year jail for rash driver | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Aug 19, 2017-Saturday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

5 years after mishap, one-year jail for rash driver

Overturning the order of a trial court that acquitted a 63-year-old retired banker of the charges of causing death by negligence and rash driving, in a five-year-old case, additional district and sessions judge, SK Aggarwal, awarded one-year-jail to Daljit Singh (63), a resident of Phase-9, SAS Nagar, on December 9.

chandigarh Updated: Dec 15, 2014 09:27 IST
Shailee Dogra

Overturning the order of a trial court that acquitted a 63-year-old retired banker of the charges of causing death by negligence and rash driving, in a five-year-old case, additional district and sessions judge, SK Aggarwal, awarded one-year-jail to Daljit Singh (63), a resident of Phase-9, SAS Nagar, on December 9.

The convict has also been fined Rs 1,500 as fine. Both sentences will run concur-rently. The appeal against earlier acquittal was filed by the state.

The accused has been convicted under Sections 304-A (causing death by negligence) and Section 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way).

Based on the eyewitness account and the mechanical report of the vehicles involved in accident along with postmortem report, the court held, “The victim Yogesh Rikhari (30), a resident of Sector-17, Panchkula, was killed due to the injuries suffered in the mishap, which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Daljit Singh.”

“It also deserves to be observed that acquittal of an accused who has committed the crime causes grave injustice in the same manner as that of conviction of an innocent person. Consequently, the instant appeal succeeds and the same is hereby accepted and order of the trial court is set-aside.

Keeping in view the gravity of the offence…the benefit of probation cannot be bestowed,” reads the order.

While admitting the appeal, the court held, “No enmity or ill-will has been alleged or proved by the accused with this prosecution witness. The home guard volunteer Anil Kumar, has no axe of his own to grind by falsely deposing and implicating the respondent-accused. The accused cannot be permitted to take the benefit of this part of the statement in as much as this witness has not stated, while recording statement before the police that the car had hit the motor cycle from the rear.”