PANAJI
In a setback to the police amid growing number of accidents, the trial court granted bail to Indian Navy personnel, whose reckless driving killed a pedestrian in the wee hours of April 8.
Naganesh Bandi employed as Civilian Motor Driver at Naval Aircraft Yard Goa, INS Hansa (Indian Navy) was on his way to his residential quarters at the Dabolim Naval Enclave in INS Hansa, when he knocked down a pedestrian near Merces Circle. The victim, Manoj Natarajan, aged 39 years, succumbed to injuries.
The Old Goa police zeroed in on the suspect based on CCTV footage, identified the vehicle, and later arrested him from his home at the naval quarters. According to the police, Bandi changed his location to avoid arrest and hid his vehicle; however, he was arrested within 48 hours while the damaged Swift car was seized for investigation.
Initially arrested for bailable offense under Sections 279 (rash driving),304-A (causing death by negligence) of IPC and Section 134 (a) (b) of Motor Vehicle Act, the investigating officer thereafter added non-bailable sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and 201(destruction of evidence) of IPC.
The amended FIR was objected to by the accused driver, whose legal representative argued that the IPC sections were changed without any evidence and moreover, the CCTV footage is not of the accident spot but that of Bambolim area where the car passed.
“No circumstances have been made out in the complaint such as the applicant was in a drunken condition and driving rash and negligent so also if there was no license and the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner (only) then Section 304 IPC would have been attracted. However, in the present case there is no such material on record to satisfy ingredients of Section 304 IPC,” the defense lawyer argued during the bail hearing.
The prosecution admitted that there is nothing to indicate that the accused, a native of Andhra Pradesh, was driving the vehicle at the time of the crime but another pedestrian, who is now an eye-witness in the case, partially noted the registration number of the speeding car.
“On the basis of CCTV footage it was found that the vehicle was seen and from the registration office the number and other details were obtained, however, there was nothing to show that the applicant was driving the vehicle at the relevant time,” the prosecution said adding that broken parts of the car found at the accident spot are sent for forensic examination. These broken pieces match the missing portion of the damaged car.
On hearing both sides, the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa Kshama Joshi observed that there is no record in the case papers to show how Section 304 of IPC was invoked and whether JMFC was intimated about it, although the prosecution claimed it did so.
The Court ordered the conditional release of the accused with the police directed to ensure he complies with the directions.
