----------------------------------
DEATHS ON ROADS - III
----------------------------------
POLICE CHARGE SHEET: 2013
* Kailash Yadav Yadav drove 108 Ambulance into the wrong lane of parallel road
* The ambulance knocked down a motorcyclist coming from the opposite direction
* The motorcycle rider succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital
* The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case
THE JUDGEMENT: SEPT 2016
* There was no basis on which the complainant (IO) could have lodged the complaint against the accused for being rash and negligent in driving the said ambulance
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pernem acquitted a 32 year-old driver Kailash Yadav of 108 Ambulance Emergency Services, in a case of rash and negligent driving allegedly resulting in the death of one Vijay Malkar in May 2013. The order was pronounced in the last week of September.
According to the charge sheet filed by Pernem Police, on May 6, 2013 Yadav flouted traffic norms while driving a Tata Winger ambulance of the 108 Emergency Services from Kudal in Maharashtra to GMC, Bambolim. Around noon on NH 17 at Malpem-Pernem, Yadav sped rashly into the wrong lane of the parallel road and in the process knocked down a motorcyclist coming from the opposite direction. The motorcycle rider Malkar who was seriosuly injured in the accident succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital.
The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case.
In her judgment, the judge Shilpa Pandit noted that there was no corroboration in the evidence provided by the two main prosecution witnesses. It was observed that the manner of the accident as stated by the two witnesses was contrary.
In his deposition, one of these witnesses, Prakash Nikam stated that he was sitting by the side of the driver in the ambulance. When the vehicle reached Pernem, one motorcycle, proceeding from Mapusa towards Patradevi, came speeding from the opposite direction and rammed into the ambulance.
He denied that it was the ambulance which caused the accident by going on the wrong side of the road and categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the fault of the motorcycle rider.
Prosecution witness Nikam further said that after the collision, the patient in the ambulance asked for the ambulance to be stopped on the side of the road and hence the ambulance was parked on the other side of the road.
However, prosecution witness Prakash Kambli insisted that the ambulance came from the opposite side and was proceeding towards Mapusa. Kambli was on his scooter with a friend and procceding towards Pernem and Malkar’s motorcycle was in front of his scooter.
Kambli said that the motorcycle broke into two parts on impact and the ambulance stopped on the right side of the road. He then called the police. But the court pointed out that Kambli was a frequent visitor to the Pernem Police Station and had acted as a witness in about two to four cases. His presence at the scene immediately before or after the accident was also questioned.
The panch witness stated that he was shown the spot of accident by the investigating officer. However, as per panchnama, the spot was shown by the ambulance driver and staff of 108 Ambulance.
In addition to this, the court rapped the investigating officer, who was admittedly not an eye witness to the accident, for filing the complaint prior to recording the statements of any witnesses.
“There was no basis on which the complainant (IO) could have lodged the complaint against the accused for being rash and negligent in driving the said ambulance,” reads the judgment.
