All accidents are not examples of rash driving: Court
25 Oct 2014 5:50 AM IST
The court also held that Test Identification Parade (TIP), a legal process when victim or witness identifies the accused in police custody or in jail, can only be used for the purpose of corroboration and not as substantive evidence.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala allowed an appeal filed by Uttar Pradesh resident Ajay Pal against his conviction and sentence order passed by a trial court saying that a ‘criminal trial court cannot raise presumption of guilt merely on the basis of unfounded presumption.’
‘One should not forget that all accidents are not example of rash or negligent driving. Therefore, just because in this accident a person had died, an adverse presumption cannot be raised against the driver of bigger vehicle to the effect that he had caused this accident by driving in rash or negligent manner,’ the judge said. The court observed that no incriminating evidence was found which show that Pal was driving the offending tractor at the time of accident as eye witnesses have denied having seen him driving the offending vehicle.
‘Accused was not under duty to take any plea to show his innocence, until unless there was some incriminating evidence against him so as to seek an explanation from him. There was no incriminating evidence to show that he was driving the offending tractor,’ the court said. Noting that mere refusal to undergo TIP by the accused cannot lead to the presumption that he was driving the vehicle, the court said the proceeding is though admissible in evidence, it is not a piece of substantive evidence.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala allowed an appeal filed by Uttar Pradesh resident Ajay Pal against his conviction and sentence order passed by a trial court saying that a ‘criminal trial court cannot raise presumption of guilt merely on the basis of unfounded presumption.’
‘One should not forget that all accidents are not example of rash or negligent driving. Therefore, just because in this accident a person had died, an adverse presumption cannot be raised against the driver of bigger vehicle to the effect that he had caused this accident by driving in rash or negligent manner,’ the judge said. The court observed that no incriminating evidence was found which show that Pal was driving the offending tractor at the time of accident as eye witnesses have denied having seen him driving the offending vehicle.
‘Accused was not under duty to take any plea to show his innocence, until unless there was some incriminating evidence against him so as to seek an explanation from him. There was no incriminating evidence to show that he was driving the offending tractor,’ the court said. Noting that mere refusal to undergo TIP by the accused cannot lead to the presumption that he was driving the vehicle, the court said the proceeding is though admissible in evidence, it is not a piece of substantive evidence.
Next Story
