Panchkula woman convicted in 2020 road accident case
After the pedestrian fell on the road, the Panchkula woman, instead of stopping, drove over the former’s legs
A local court convicted a Panchkula woman four years after she rammed her car into a 60-year-old woman and drove over her legs.
The convict has been identified as Shewta Chauhan of Sector 27, Panchkula.
The case dates back to March 13, 2020, when the victim, Nand Kaur, a resident of Sector 26, Panchkula, was headed to the Herbal Park in Sector 27 with her friend Maya Kaur.
On the way, a speeding car, bearing a Himachal registration number, hit her from the back. As a result, she fell on the road. Instead of stopping, the car driver drove the vehicle over her legs, resulting in critical injuries.
On the victim’s complaint, a case under Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by endangering life) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by endangering life) of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Chandimandir police station
The court found the driver guilty of all three counts.
“The rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is revealed from the manner of the accident itself. The accused drove the vehicle without possessing any driving licence and hit the complainant, who was on foot,” observed the court of additional chief judicial magistrate, Panchkula, Hitesh Garg.
The defence had argued that Chauhan was not behind the accident and that she had only taken the injured woman to the hospital on humanitarian grounds. It was stated that Chauhan’s cousin had been behind the wheel and that the former was implicated after she took the victim to the hospital.
The court, however, did not find any merit in the argument. “There is not an iota of evidence on record to even remotely support the stand of the defence that the cousin of the accused was driving the vehicle and not the accused herself. This plea appears to have been taken as an afterthought primarily on account of the fact that the accused Shweta Chauhan did not possess a valid driving licence.”
The order further read: “This court cannot overlook the fact that the complainant as well as independent witnesses were not previously known to the accused and thus had no reason to implicate her.”