E-Paper
Panchkula court acquits man in fatal accident case, slams police for ‘perfunctory investigation’
The court acquitted K Arjun Singh, a resident of Samrala in Punjab, who was booked by Sector 14 police station in an FIR registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC on November 26, 2018
“An extremely unfortunate incident has occurred in which one person has lost her life but due to the perfunctory investigation on the part of the concerned IO, the actual culprit has been screened. Such carelessness on the part of the investigating officer does not only cause injustice to the victim in the present case but is also a failure of the whole criminal jurisprudence system,” a Panchkula court observed while acquitting an accused in a 2018 fatal accident case, citing serious lapses in police investigation and lack of credible evidence.
The court acquitted K Arjun Singh, a resident of Samrala in Punjab, who was booked by Sector 14 police station in an FIR registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC on November 26, 2018. The accused was later arrested on January 21, 2019.
The case pertained to an accident that occurred near Agrasen Chowk in Sector 16 on November 18, 2018, in which Rajni, a resident of Budhanpur village, suffered serious injuries and later died during treatment at PGI Chandigarh.
According to the complaint lodged by her son Hukam Chand, he and his mother were returning home on an Activa scooter after visiting his daughter admitted to civil hospital, Sector 6. Around 2pm, a Punjab-registered car allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner hit their scooter from behind. Both fell on the road, while Rajni sustained severe head, facial and waist injuries and became unconscious.
The complainant alleged that locals caught the driver when he tried to flee and that the injured were taken to civil hospital in the same car. However, he claimed the accused later escaped from the hospital.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including investigating officer SI Pardeep Kumar.
However, the court found major discrepancies and lapses in the investigation. “The FIR in the present case has been lodged after a delay of almost a week after the incident. The said delay has been totally ignored by the prosecution and no explanation in this regard has been furnished either by the complainant or the prosecution,” the court observed, adding that the unexplained delay raised an adverse inference against the prosecution case.
The court further noted that during cross-examination, complainant Hukam Chand admitted that he had not mentioned the identity of the accused in his original complaint. It also observed that he made several improvements in his testimony during trial regarding facts not mentioned earlier, creating doubts over his credibility.
The court also pointed out that despite the accident occurring in a public place, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. “Other people apart from the complainant and injured were present at the spot and had even apprehended the accused, however, none of those witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, which puts a huge dent in their version,” the court held.
Questioning the investigation further, the court noted that no CCTV footage or photographs of the incident were produced. It also observed that witness Deepak Mishra, who allegedly reached the spot immediately after the accident, admitted during cross-examination that he did not know who was driving the offending vehicle.
The court further observed that the accused was not arrested from the spot and was apprehended only after more than two months, which “creates reasonable doubt and indicates evident manipulation by the prosecution”.
The mechanical examination reports of the vehicles were also conducted after a delay of nearly a month. The court said the reports did not support the prosecution’s claim of a strong collision as the offending vehicle showed only minor scratches.
“If there was such an impactful collision, then major damage should have been found on the offending vehicle,” the court observed, adding that the reports failed to establish rashness or negligence on the part of the accused.
Holding that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the accused and his involvement beyond reasonable doubt, the court acquitted him of all charges.
“In view of the glaring embellishments in the version of the prosecution, the possibility that the accused has been falsely implicated cannot be ruled out,” the court concluded.
