Contradictions in evidence lead to acquittal verdict
The Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Merces has acquitted 36-year-old Mayur Dhond in the 2019 hit-and-run accident that claimed the life of 68-year-old pedestrian Remediana Do Rosario, citing inconsistencies in witness accounts and insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crash.
The accident occurred on December 1, 2019, when Dhond allegedly speeding a red Mercedes-Benz near the football ground at Campal, hit the pedestrian while she was crossing the road. She later died of her injuries at GMC Bambolim.
Dhond was tried on charges of rash and negligent driving, causing death by negligence, and leaving the scene without providing medical assistance. However, the court held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt either the involvement of the accused or that of the vehicle allegedly used in the accident.
In its judgment, the court pointed out that while police had seized a red Mercedes-Benz, the prosecution’s sole eyewitness, Maria, had stated that the vehicle involved in the accident was silver in colour. The court also noted that no test identification parade was conducted during the investigation.
During cross-examination, the eyewitness admitted that, due to poor visibility and the early-morning hour, she could neither clearly identify the accused nor note the vehicle's registration number.
The court observed that this uncertainty, coupled with the absence of physical evidence such as broken glass pieces at the scene, weakened the prosecution’s case. Moreover, inspection of the seized vehicle revealed scratches on the rear alloy wheel, which the eyewitness herself admitted would not ordinarily result from a frontal collision with a pedestrian.
In view of these gaps, the court answered all points for determination against the prosecution. “The involvement of the accused or that he was rash and negligent is nowhere revealed from the testimony of the witnesses... and hence the testimony does not hold any weight in proving the case,” the court observed.
