‘Gaps in probe’: Panchkula court acquits man in fatal mishap case

The court observed that the prosecution failed to establish either his identity as the driver or rash and negligent driving; it further noted that no independent public witness was joined despite the accident occurring at a public place

A Panchkula court has acquitted a Sector 20 resident accused of causing the death of a cook in a 2021 road accident, observing that the prosecution failed to establish either his identity as the driver or rash and negligent driving. He was booked by the Sector 20 police on November 19, 2021.

On rash and negligent driving, the court stressed that a driver cannot be presumed to be rash merely because an accident occurred.

The court of additional chief judicial magistrate, which acquitted Raj Kumar of charges under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code on August 13, held that the evidence was “too scanty” to fasten criminal liability on him.

According to the prosecution, Jiya Lal, a cook, was returning home on November 18, 2021 when an Activa scooter allegedly hit him from behind near Society No. 105, Sector 20. He was taken to the civil hospital in Sector 6 and later referred to PGIMER in Chandigarh where he died of his injuries.

The court found that the deceased’s wife, who was a key prosecution witness, had not seen the accident. She also said she did not know who had informed her about it and that the police never got Raj Kumar identified by her. The court observed that her testimony failed to establish that Kumar was driving the Activa or that his rash driving caused the accident.

The deceased’s son and daughter also admitted that they had not witnessed the accident and failed to identify the accused. The court said their evidence did not connect Kumar with the offence.

The court also flagged shortcomings in the investigation. It noted that Kumar was not arrested at the spot, no eyewitness identified him and no test identification parade was conducted. “Identification of the accused for the first time before the court is no identification in the eyes of law,” the court observed.

The court also noted that no independent public witness was involved.

On rash and negligent driving, the court stressed that a driver cannot be presumed to be rash merely because an accident occurred. Such negligence must be specifically established through evidence showing what the driver did or failed to do.