Metropolitan Magistrate Manisha Khurana Kakkar absolved Delhi resident Himanshu Chaudhary of alleged offences under sections 279 (rash driving) and 304 A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC, observing that even the eyewitness of the incident had not supported prosecution’s case.
A man, accused of causing death of a person by negligent driving, has been acquitted by a Delhi court which noted that high alcohol content was found in the victim’s body and possibility of “contributory negligence” on his part cannot be ruled out.Metropolitan Magistrate Manisha Khurana Kakkar absolved Delhi resident Himanshu Chaudhary of alleged offences under sections 279 (rash driving) and 304 A (causing death by negligence) of the IPC, observing that even the eyewitness of the incident had not supported prosecution’s case. “The eyewitness has completely resiled from his previous statement given to the police and the possibility of his being won over by the accused cannot be ruled out,” the court said.<!– Dna_Article_Middle_300x250_BTF –>”As per the forensic report, high alcohol content was found in the blood sample of the deceased. The same also castes a doubt on the case of prosecution and the possibility of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased cannot be ruled out,” it said, while acquitting him. According to the prosecution, on May 3, 2013, Himanshu was allegedly driving a car in a rash and negligent manner and hit pedestrian Mahender who was crossing the road at that time.The victim suffered fatal injuries in the accident and the accused was arrested, it said, adding that complaint was filed by eyewitness Nitesh who had told the police that on the day of accident, he was walking in his locality in Sadiq Nagar in south Delhi when the accident took place. Nitesh went to the spot and found that the injured person was lying on the road and blood was oozing out from his body after which he took him to a hospital and informed the police, it claimed.Nitesh, however, resiled from his statement before the court and deposed that he had not seen the accident and also failed to identify the accused in the court. During the trial, the accused had pleaded innocence and claimed he was falsely implicated.