A Delhi court has acquitted a man of the charge of rash driving, while convicting him for the offence of using a forged driving licence.
The court noted that while the charge of rash riding was not proved “beyond reasonable doubts,” the accused had “fraudulently or dishonestly” produced his driving licence before the Investigating Officer.
The court was hearing a case where the accused allegedly rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner to cause simple injuries to the complainant and grievous injuries to another person on June 27, 2012, near the Akshardham temple.
During investigation of the case, the driving licence produced before the IO was found to be forged.
“I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accident occurred due to negligence of accused Pintu Kumar alone and of no one else,” Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Deepak Kumar said in an order dated August 23.
The judge further said the prosecution has also failed to establish that the accident was not caused by any contributory negligence on the part of the injured.
The court noted the testimonies of a witness had “several infirmities,” while the person suffering from grievous injuries had provided “contradictory versions for the identification of the accused.” The versions of two police personnel also had “serious contradictions” and the non-joining of independent witnesses, despite their availability, further frustrated the case of the prosecution.
The case built by the prosecution appeared to be suffering from fatal infirmities, so much so, that it shook the very edifice on which the complainant’s case rested, the court said.
The court, however, convicted the accused for using a forged licence, saying “ it can be safely and inescapably deduced that accused fraudulently or dishonestly used his driving licence by producing it before IO as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that the same was forged document.” The court noted that the prosecution witness from the driving licence record maintaining authority had deposed that no license of the said number was issued and the accused was silent with regards to the source from which he arranged the licence.
No explanation, whatsoever, has come forth from the accused with regard to the allegation of using forged driving licence as genuine, the court said.
(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)