In a significant judgment, the Himachal Pradesh High Court emphasized the necessity of establishing the identity of the accused driver beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction in road accident cases. Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that both the trial and appellate courts failed to appreciate that the identity of the accused and the vehicle involved were not conclusively established.
The case arose from an incident in December 2024, where the informant and her brother were returning from Dhalli. According to the informant, a Santro car overtook a Himachal Road Transport Corporation bus at high speed and struck her son, causing grievous injuries. Following medical examination, the police filed charges against the petitioner under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Section 279 (rash and negligent driving), Section 337 (causing hurt by rash or negligent act), Section 338 (causing grievous hurt by rash or negligent act), and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence or giving false information).
The trial court convicted the petitioner, leading to an appeal in the High Court. The petitioner contended that there was no evidence to prove that he was driving the vehicle or that his vehicle was involved in the accident. In response, the State argued that the petitioner had failed to appear on the required date, thereby forfeiting his right to dispute his identity.
Upon reviewing the case, the High Court found several inconsistencies in the evidence presented. The initial police entry and the informant's statement lacked the vehicle's registration number or any reliable identifying details. Additionally, the temporary registration certificate listed the vehicle's colour as 'forest dew,' while the informant described it as 'violet,' highlighting a discrepancy. The Court also noted that the injured party admitted to hearing the driver's name for the first time from his sister, rendering his testimony regarding the driver's identity hearsay and inadmissible. Furthermore, the investigating officer failed to clarify how he determined the identity of the driver or the vehicle involved.
Consequently, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had not established the identity of the driver and the vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner. This ruling underscores the critical importance of reliable identification in ensuring justice in road accident cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.