Srinagar, July 29, KDC: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the acquittal of a minibus driver accused of causing the death of a five-year-old child in a 2000 road accident in Rajouri, holding that the post-mortem findings directly contradicted prosecution claims that the victim was run over.
Dismissing an acquittal appeal filed by the Union Territory administration against a 2009 appellate order, Justice M. A. Chowdhary, according to news agency Kashmir Dot Com, said that the Appellate Court had recorded a meticulously reasoned finding based on a proper appreciation of evidence.
The matter dates back to May 22, 2000, when an FIR under Sections 279 and 304-A of the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) was registered at Police Station Sunder Bani following a fatal incident near Baja Bian.
According to the prosecution, the child, after disembarking from a vehicle with his grandfather, had crossed over to the rough side of the road when an oncoming minibus driven rashly hit and ran over him.
While the Judicial Magistrate Sunder Bani had initially convicted the driver in August 2002, the Additional Sessions Judge Rajouri set aside the conviction in May 2009, prompting the State to file a criminal acquittal appeal before the High Court.
Challenging the acquittal, the prosecution argued that the trial court had rightly evaluated the testimonies of eyewitnesses establishing a proximate link between the driver’s rash conduct and the fatal outcome. Counsel for the respondent driver submitted that key prosecution witnesses made glaring contradictory statements and that physical injuries noted on the victim did not align with a vehicle running over a child.
Examining the record, the High Court noted a crucial conflict between the medical evidence and the eyewitness accounts. The autopsy report prepared by the medical officer revealed contusions on the parietal bone and minor abrasions on the cheek and shoulder, with no crushed injuries to the pelvic, abdominal, or spinal regions.
The Court observed that had the vehicle actually run over the child as projected by the prosecution, the victim would have suffered extensive crush injuries.
“Had the vehicle run over the deceased, as has been projected by the prosecution story, the deceased would have suffered enormous damage to his abdomen, pelvic and spinal area,” Justice M. A. Chowdhary noted, finding the grandfather’s account unreliable to sustain a conviction.
Evaluating the mechanics of pedestrian accidents, the Court highlighted that two reasonable possibilities emerged from the evidence: either the child became frightened while crossing and fell on the rough edge of the road, or made contact with the rear portion of the passing vehicle. In neither scenario could criminal rashness or negligence be automatically attributed to the driver.
Citing Supreme Court precedents on road traffic adjudications, the High Court reiterated that if a pedestrian suddenly crosses a road without accounting for an approaching vehicle, a driver cannot be held criminally negligent merely because an impact occurred.
“Rash and negligence under the Criminal Law has got to be of such a nature which may be hazardous and unmindful of the safety of others… the fatal injuries received by the deceased cannot be attributed to any rash and negligent act of the respondent,” the Bench held.
Reaffirming the settled legal principle that appellate courts should not disturb an acquittal if the view taken by the lower court is a plausible and reasonable one, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal.
In the proceedings, Government Advocate Bhanu Jasrotia appeared for the appellant UT administration, while advocates Manpreet Kour and Kamal Mangotra represented the respondent driver. (KDC)
