New Delhi, Jul 5 Observing that criminal convictions cannot be sustained on the basis of "unreliable testimony" and "improbable conduct", a Delhi court has acquitted a former DTC bus driver of the charge of rash driving in a 15-year-old road accident case that left a woman dead.
Additional Sessions Judge Dhirendra Rana was hearing the appeal of Shyam Sunder, who had been convicted by a magistrate under IPC sections 304 A (causing death by negligence) and 279 (rash and negligent driving), and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in May last year.
According to the prosecution, Sunder was rashly driving a DTC bus on October 25, 2011 on Shankar Road resulting in death of one Chandrawati.
It said the prosecution's case rested solely on the testimony of eyewitness Kulchander, the victim's husband.
"It is not in dispute that deceased Chandrawati got injured at the above mentioned time and place and ultimately she expired during treatment. Therefore, death of deceased is outcome of a road accident," the court said, adding, the onus was upon the prosecution to prove rash and negligent driving.
The court, however, raised doubts whether the man was present at the spot.
It said, "If prosecution witness 1 (Kulchander) was present at the spot then the most natural and probable human conduct of a husband would have been to inform the police and inform the number of the offending vehicle at the first instance so that the accused along with offending vehicle may be apprehended."
"If he was accompanying the deceased to the hospital then why would name of his son would be mentioned by the doctor, is also beyond contemplation of this court. If he had seen the offending vehicle and noted down its number then why it was stated to the doctor that she was being hit by an unknown vehicle."
The court said during cross-examination, the husband tried to mislead the court by stating that he got the victim admitted in the hospital which is contradictory to the contents of the medico-legal report (MLC).
It said, "He stated that he took the victim to the hospital in an ambulance but he could not tell its number. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the spot at the time of accident and was in his office but he did not specifically stated that whether he was on leave on that day or not."
The court observed that considering his "improbable conduct", the husband's presence at the spot is "under serious cloud" and in the given circumstances, the entire prosecution case, based upon his sole testimony to prove rashness and negligence against the accused, is "badly affected".
It said that the investigating officer (IO) did not examine the deceased's son, who was also an eyewitness, and that there was no plausible explanation for the non-examination.
The court noted the statement of a public witness, who deposed that he was present at the spot when the injured was lying on the road and informed the police and had the injured shifted in an ambulance along with her son and thereafter left for his office.
"His testimony is relevant to the fact that Chandrawati was accompanied by her son and not by her husband," the court said.
"It is highly surprising to observe that the IO did not examine these important witnesses and filed the charge sheet relying upon the testimony of Kulchander," it added.
The court said the vehicle's driver cannot be punished merely because the accident had occurred but it has to be proved that it was his negligence or rashness which caused the accident.
It said, "The entire case of the prosecution to prove negligence or rashness against the accused is dependent upon the sole testimony of Kulchander but his presence is highly doubtful at the spot and it would be highly unsafe to decide this case on the basis of such "unreliable testimony".
The court said the IO opted not to examine son of the deceased in the witness box for the reasons best know to her otherwise things would have been more clear.
The court also underlined a logistical improbability after noting the defense's argument regarding the "presence of the vehicle."
Noting that records showed the bus departed from the Tilak Nagar Depot at 8:40 AM, the court said it highly "doubtful" that a bus could cover a distance of 16-18 km in peak morning traffic to reach the accident spot by 9:15 AM while stopping at several bus stands.
"Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Shyam Sunder under section 279 and 304 A of the IPC as the sole witness to prove rashness and negligence is unreliable witness," the court said.
