Sign in

Panchkula: Teacher convicted in 2020 road mishap case released on one-year probation

The court of additional chief judicial magistrate Hitesh Garg, while pronouncing the quantum of sentence said the convict Shweta Chauhan, of Sector 27, Panchkula, be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing probation bonds of 40,000 with one surety in the like amount

Updated on: Feb 28, 2024, 08:56:05 IST
By , Panchkula
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

A private school teacher, convicted four years after she rammed her car into a 60-year-old woman and drove over her legs, was released on one-year probation by the local court.

Probation implies that the release of an offender from detention, subject to a period of good behaviour under supervision. (HT File Photo)
Probation implies that the release of an offender from detention, subject to a period of good behaviour under supervision. (HT File Photo)

The court of additional chief judicial magistrate, Panchkula, Hitesh Garg, while pronouncing the quantum of sentence said the convict Shweta Chauhan, of Sector 27, Panchkula, be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing probation bonds of 40,000 with one surety in the like amount.

“Admittedly, the convict, who is an unmarried lady in her 30’s is first time offender and has no past criminal record. She is facing criminal proceedings over the last almost 4 years. In the considered opinion of this court, convict ought to be given an opportunity to reform herself rather than incarcerating her and keeping her in the company of hardened criminals,” read the order of additional chief judicial magistrate, Panchkula, Hitesh Garg, on February 23, detailed copy of the order made available now.

Probation implies that the release of an offender from detention, subject to a period of good behaviour under supervision. “Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case and especially the fact that after the accident, accused/convict herself took the injured to the hospital in her car, in the considered opinion of this court, the ends of justice will be fully met, if the convict is extended benefit of probation,” the order further read.

The court said, “During this period, she will maintain good behaviour and in case of any breach of any condition of the bond, she will be called upon to receive the sentence in accordance with law.”

Not just this, the court also directed Chauhan to pay compensation of 20,000 to injured Nand Kaur, 60, resident of Sector-26, Panchkula. The court also directed the convict to pay 1,000 as cost of proceeding.

She was convicted of rash driving

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.

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 while convicting Chauhan on February 21, had held, “Rashness and negligence on the part of the accused is revealed from the manner of the accident itself. Accused drove the vehicle without possessing any driving licence and hit the complainant, who was going by foot from behind.”

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.”