PANAJI
In what appears to be yet another case of weak police investigation coupled with a strong defense, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Quepem acquitted one Dinkar Malsekar, resident of Sadashivgad, Karwar in Karnataka in a case of rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of a pedestrian in January 2015 at Balli, Quepem.
The unfortunate incident occurred on January 1, 2015 at around 4.20 pm opposite Deepak bar and restaurant located at Balli, Quepem when a tanker carrying load of palm oil and driven by the accused Malsekar allegedly dashed a pedestrian, Laxman Naik causing his instant death. The tanker was proceeding from Canacona towards Margao and the accident occurred near four road junction at Balli.
Cuncolim police chargesheeted the accused under Section 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and 304 (causing death by negligence) of IPC.
The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. However, none of these were eye witnesses and the prosecution failed to bring any evidence on record to show that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving or even to show how the said accident occurred.
One among the other damning observations of JMFC Kshama Joshi was that the sketch produced on record did not show any vehicle at the spot of the accident and only showed the dead body.
Besides, as per the witnesses, the point of impact is shown as the distance of around 1.5 mts from the left side of the five-mt wide road.
The first witness was a passerby who was proceeding to Margao, who saw the body of the deceased on the left side of the road. This witness stated that there were blood stains on the left rear tyre flap of the tanker.
However, he said that the tanker was not at the spot of the accident and that he saw it only at the Cuncolim police station. He also admitted that he was not informed as to how, when and by whom the tanker was taken to the police station.
In addition to this, the witness stated that he was informed by the police that there were stains on the tyre flap and that these were blood stains. Apart from the flap, blood was not seen on the tanker, he said.
The second witness, owner of Deepak bar and restaurant, turned hostile and besides stating that the accident occurred in front of his bar, he denied all suggestions put to him.
The third witness carried out accident inspection of the tanker and found blood stains on the left hand rear tyre and axle. However, he stated that he did not take sample of the blood on the tyre and that he was not in a position to say whether the blood was of human or of an animal.
The fourth witness was the owner of the tanker. He said that he owns four tankers and that four drivers interchange shifts on each vehicle. It was further stated that no roster is maintained by the company and hence, it couldn't be shown if the accused was driving the said tanker on the day of the accident.
The fifth witness was a cop on SHO duty who received the phone call about the accident and registered the offence. He stated that it was the accused who drove the tanker from the spot of the accident to the police station when he went to inquire about eye witnesses.
The last witness was also a cop who said that he noticed that the tyre of the tanker had gone over the neck and body of the deceased. However, he also said that the accused had reached the police station before the police left for the spot of the accident. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol.
