E-Paper
Panchkula: Rashness can’t be presumed in accidents, says court, acquits trucker in 2018 crash
The court acquitted Dinesh, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, of charges under Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt negligent act) and 304-A (death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code
A Kalka court has acquitted a truck driver accused of causing the deaths of four persons in a 2018 road accident, observing that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he was driving the truck at the time of the collision or that he was driving rashly or negligently.
The court acquitted Dinesh, a resident of Uttar Pradesh, of charges under Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt negligent act) and 304-A (death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment was pronounced on August 20.
The court observed that mere occurrence of an accident or collision is not sufficient to establish criminal rashness or negligence. It also noted that “high speed”, by itself, does not necessarily establish rash or negligent driving and that the prosecution must prove the specific act or omission attributable to the accused.
According to the prosecution, the accident occurred on October 23, 2018, near village Kiratpur when a truck, bearing registration number HP-64-3785, allegedly collided with a car carrying employees of a company travelling towards Baddi. Four occupants of the car: Vipin Kumar, Agoesh Gopal, Babu Pilai and Sanjay Kumar died in the accident.
The prosecution relied on several witnesses, including Tanveer, who was driving the car. During cross-examination, Tanveer admitted that he had neither seen the truck driver nor noted the vehicle’s registration number at the spot.
The court noted that the complainant and alleged eyewitness, Mela Singh, died during the pendency of the trial. Consequently, his alleged identification of the accused during investigation could not be tested through substantive testimony and cross-examination.
Only 1 person presented before witness during identification
Another significant point noted by the court was the manner of the identification proceedings. The investigating officer admitted that no person other than the accused was produced before Mela Singh during the identification process. The court held that this did not provide independent assurance regarding the accused’s identity.
“Rashness or negligence of a driver cannot be presumed merely because an accident has occurred,” the court observed, adding that the prosecution must prove the specific act or omission constituting rashness or negligence.
Holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the court extended the benefit of doubt to Dinesh and acquitted him of all charges.
