Sreya Kanugula
Man had been found guilty by Court for not providing any help to a couple he had hit with his car at Mumbai’s Marine Drive in 2019. Now he had been acquitted by the court of rash driving charges and the lack of help provided by him.
Mr. Sudeep Mazumdar had not reported the incident to any police stations and the court had found that he had been bound by duty to do so.
Facts on the case
On the 21st of April in 2019, Abhay Shah along with his wife had been in an accident after a car dashed into their scooter. The couple had been injured when they collided with the car.
And the car raced away from the scene. One of Malabar Hill law enforcement station’s police naik’s, who had been doing his duty that day at the same signal, went to the spot and made a note of the car’s number.
The injured pair were sent to a hospital in the aftermath of the accident.
At Gaondevi Police Station, a case had been filed against the accused under Sections 279 (rash driving) and 338 (endangering life) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). And under Section 134(a) (b) which is punishable under Section 179(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The court was informed by the defense that a settlement had taken place between the couple and the accused and that no grievance was borne by the informant on his client.
An argument on how it wasn’t Mr. Mazumdar’s fault was also made to show that he wasn’t liable to be given punishment for the aforementioned charges.
The magistrate court went through all of the case’s evidence and stated that “It is well-settled law that the burden is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, if the evidence of the witnesses perused, it appears that the prosecution has examined as much as three witnesses.”
Despite the accounts given by the informant along with the police naik and one more person, the accident hadn’t been witnessed by anybody besides the main two parties.
It was also stated, while the order was being passed by the court that “Merely because the accused was driving the four-wheeler which was involved in the accident doesn’t mean that he has committed the offence punishable under Section 279 of IPC.“
Further notes were made when the witnesses had all rushed over to the site of the accident, they had all claimed that it was a white car they had spotted. But the car had fled the scene as soon as the accident occurred.
The court made another observation on how the person behind the wheel of the white car hadn’t reported the accident to the police despite having to do so. “Therefore, in my view, he has also committed the offence defined under Section 134(b) punishable under Section 187 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,” was what the magistrate had stated.
Mr. Mazumdar had informed the court of his child being inside the car when the accident had occurred after he was convicted by the court. And had made a plea to it, requesting leniency under the reason of him being his family’s sole breadwinner.
He was also given directions by the court for a deposit fine of Rs. 1,000 which it stated will be “the ends of justice.”
