A Delhi court has set aside the two-year jail term awarded to a DTC bus driver in a 2003 case of death by negligent driving, while observing that the police could not prove the charge against the accused who had to faced the agony of trial for more than a decade.
The court, however, upheld his conviction under the Motor Vehicle Act for carrying an expired driving licence at the time of the incident but released him with a fine of Rs 500, saying it was not a case of driving commercial vehicle without licence.
"Mere fact that accident had taken place and that one person had died while another sustained injury is ipso-facto not sufficient to hold that the bus was being driven in a rash or negligent manner," Special Judge Pawan Kumar Jain said.
"Considering the fact that he(driver) had not only faced the agony of trial for more than a decade but he had also a driving licence, the fault on the part of appellant was that he could not get renewed his driving licence in time.
"It is not a case where a person was found driving a commercial vehicle without any driving licence. Rather, in the instant case, appellant was working in DTC and he was having valid driving licence, but he could not get it renewed when it was expired in January, 2003," the judge said while partly allowing the appeal of driver Raj Bahadur.
According to the police, in 2003 Bahadur allegedly rammed the DTC bus he was driving into a Maruti car near Pitampura here in which two men were sitting leading to the death of one of them.
Bahadur had been held guilty by a magisterial court for the offences under sections 304A(causing death by negligence), 279(rash driving), 337(causing hurt by endangering life of others) of the IPC and was awarded two years in jail besides being asked to pay compensation of Rs 50,000 to victim's kin.
In his appeal against the order, Bahadur contended that there was nothing to prove that he caused the accident or was driving in a negligent manner.
The DTC driver had also sought a lenient view on the ground that he has been facing the agony of trial since 2003 and he has no criminal antecedents.
The sessions court, while partly allowing the appeal, said that the prosecution failed to establish the meaning of 'rashness' or 'negligence' or 'high speed'.
"Though prosecution witness (eye witness), in
examination-in-chief, categorically deposed that the bus was being driven at fast speed, but he did not clarify what was the approximate speed of the bus at the time of accident. Even he did not clarify what did he meant by the fast speed," the court said.
"In the absence of any such material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the deposition of the witness that the bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed is not helpful to the prosecution to establish the guilt of appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts," it said.
"Admittedly there is no other evidence on record which may prove that bus was being driven either in a rash or negligent manner at the time of accident. Mere fact that accident had taken place and that one person had died while another sustained injury is ipso-facto not sufficient to hold that the bus was being driven in a rash or negligent manner," the court said.
