Man gets 1 yr jail, Rs 1 lakh fine for negligent driving

A man, facing trial for 15 years for causing death to a child by his rash driving, has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs one lakh by a Delhi court.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Rakesh Kumar-III handed down the punishment to Kalim, a resident of Yamuna Vihar in north east Delhi, after holding him guilty for the offences of rash driving on a public way and causing death due to negligence.
While convicting Kalim, the magisterial court referred to a Supreme Court judgement which had held that "It is axiomatic to say that while driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of the right users of the road, may be either vehicle users or pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid danger to others."

The judge said, "There is no dispute qua the fact that accused (Kalim) was driving the offending vehicle, he was apprehended by the public persons and handed over to police at the spot as such all these fact has been declared proved," the court said while relying on the prosecution witnesses.
According to police, Kalim was driving a tempo in a rash and negligent manner in a market near Karawal Nagar here on September 7, 1999, and hit a child due to which he died.
The complaint was lodged by Ratan Singh, an eyewitness to the accident, who said the rashly driven tempo had hit the child walking on the street and he died on the spot.

He further said that immediately after the accident, he had caught Kalim with the help of the passersby and handed him over to police.
In his defence, Kalim denied the allegations saying he was falsely implicated in the case. He contended that he was driving his vehicle just behind a DTC bus which had caused the accident and ran away from the spot. He had stopped his tempo to take the child to hospital, he claimed.
The court, however, rejected his contentions saying that once it was proved that the accused was driving the offending vehicle, it was his duty to prove his innocence but he has failed to give any evidence in this regard.