BENGALURU: A 21-year-old man, whose alleged negligent driving resulted in the death of a person, who was also travelling in the vehicle, was let off the hook by the high court as the prosecution could not prove its case against him. He walked free and had to only pay a fine of Rs 500 for driving a tipper lorry without a valid driving licence.
On the fateful day in June 2010, the youngster was driving a tipper loaded with mud on Basappanakatte Road, allegedly at a high speed and in a rash manner. He applied sudden brakes when he came across road humps. The victim, who was sitting inside the cabin, got thrown off as the door got opened under the impact. He then came under the wheels of the lorry.
The victim succumbed to the injuries after being rushed to a hospital. It was later found that the driver had no valid driving licence and hence he was booked under Sections 279, 304A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
However, the trial court acquitted the driver as it found that there was a contradiction between the evidence provided by an eyewitness and the investigating officer. The eyewitness had testified that the victim was travelling in the cabin of the lorry and got thrown out when sudden brakes were applied.
Whereas the investigating officer testified that the victim was seated on the mud loaded in the cargo section when the accident happened.
It is this contradiction that prompted the trial court to hold that the case against accused has not been established beyond all reasonable doubts. The state then filed an appeal before the high court challenging the driver’s acquittal.
“It was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the door of the vehicle was not properly secured or that it was not functioning properly or it was capable of being thrown open when the vehicle suddenly stopped or slowed down,” the high court said, while adding that the motor vehicle inspector in his report had not stated anything about the manner in which the accident could have occurred or the state of repair of the door of the vehicle and this was a serious contradiction which would make a difference as to how the victim got run-over.
