E-Paper
2016 Chandigarh road accident: 44-day delay in lodging FIR leads to acquittal of accused biker
Observing that the injured man was declared medically fit to give statement within two days of the accident in September 2016, a Chandigarh court exonerated the accused
Taking note of the 44-day delay by police in lodging the FIR, a local court has acquitted a motorcyclist who had hit a pedestrian near Sector 7 in September 2016.
Satish Kumar, assistant director with the Directorate of Census Operations, Haryana, Sector 9, was on the zebra crossing to cross the dividing road between Sectors 7 and 19 on September 21, 2016, when a motorcycle hit him.
The accident left both Satish and the motorcyclist, Ankush, injured and they were taken to Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Sector 32, for treatment.
However, citing that he was not physically and mentally well, Kumar recorded his statement with the police only on December 3, 2016.
After he accused Ankush of driving in a rash and negligent manner, police lodged an FIR and arrested him. His motorcycle was also impounded. But claiming that he was not guilty, Ankush opted for trial.
During the trial, the prosecution called on cops who corroborated the victim’s version. Two doctors from GMCH-32 — Dr Dhruv Verma and Dr Tejas — also deposed that the victim sustained grievous injuries, including bicolumnar acetabulum fracture and pelvis diastasis, and was discharged on October 17, 2016.
But pointing out the considerable delay in lodging the FIR, the defence counsel prayed for acquittal.
Acknowledging the delay, the court of additional chief judicial magistrate TPS Randhawa observed, “...the complainant/injured was declared fit to give statement by the doctor on September 23, 2016, itself. Such a long delay leads to inference that the FIR is the result of afterthought and improvement. On this ground alone, the accused deserves to be acquitted.”
The court also noted that there was nothing on the file to prove how the accused was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and there was no eyewitness to corroborate the complainant’s statement. Thus, giving Ankush the benefit of doubt, the court exonerated him.
