Early Times Report
Jammu, July 29: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that the mere occurrence of a road accident cannot establish criminal rashness or negligence, while upholding the acquittal of a mini-bus driver in a 26-year-old case involving the death of a minor child.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary dismissed an acquittal appeal filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir against Ravi Kumar, observing that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving on his part.
The case arose from an accident at Sunderbani on May 22, 2000, in which five-to-six-year-old Rohit Singh lost his life.
The prosecution alleged that the child was run over by a mini-bus driven by Ravi Kumar after he had alighted from another vehicle and crossed the road along with his grandfather.
The Judicial Magistrate, Sunderbani, had convicted the accused under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Ranbir Penal Code on August 20, 2002. However, the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajouri, set aside the conviction and acquitted him on May 13, 2009.
Challenging the acquittal, Government Advocate Bhanu Jasrotia argued that the Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence and that the death of the child had a direct and proximate connection with the rash conduct of the driver.
He submitted that the prosecution had produced sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove the charges and sought restoration of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Advocates Manpreet Kour and Kamal Mangotra, appearing for the respondent, opposed the appeal and argued that there was no credible evidence establishing rashness or negligence.
They pointed out that the passengers travelling in the offending vehicle had not been examined and that the prosecution witnesses had made materially inconsistent statements regarding the manner in which the accident took place.
The High Court observed that the prosecution story claiming that the mini-bus had run over the child was not supported by the medical evidence.
The doctor who conducted the post-mortem had noticed a contusion over the right parietal bone and abrasions over the right cheek and shoulder. No crushing injuries were found on the abdomen, pelvic region or spinal area.
The Court observed that had the vehicle actually run over the child, as alleged by the prosecution, extensive injuries to those parts of the body would normally have been present.
Justice Chowdhary also found the testimony of the child’s grandfather doubtful, observing that although he claimed to have witnessed the accident, he could not state which portion of the vehicle had struck the child.
The Court further noted that the child’s father was working as a mason at a distance of about 300 feet and could not reliably claim to have witnessed the occurrence.
After examining the testimony of other witnesses, the High Court said that two reasonable possibilities emerged from the evidence.
The child might have become frightened on seeing the approaching vehicle, run for safety and fallen on the rough portion of the road, or he might have come into contact with the rear portion of the moving vehicle.
“In both these probabilities, the respondent-accused cannot be stated to have acted in a rash and negligent manner,” the Court observed.
The High Court ruled that criminal rashness and negligence must be of such a nature as to demonstrate a hazardous act and disregard for the safety of others.
It further observed that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal merely because another view of the evidence is possible, particularly when the view taken by the lower court is reasonable and its findings are neither perverse nor contrary to the record.
Holding that the Additional Sessions Judge had meticulously appreciated the evidence, the High Court dismissed the UT’s appeal and upheld the acquittal of the mini-bus driver. (JNF) |
