Man charged with causing death by negligence: Bombay High Court sets aside acquittal, orders retrial

Justice Haq said: “The magistrate has disposed the matter under the misconception that it is the duty of only the prosecution to see that the victims get justice and the accused is/are punished…The magistrate is not helpless and not at the mercy of the prosecutor. The magistrate is conferred and vested with ample powers to compel the attendance of witnesses and to see that the victim does not walk away from the court dejected and with a feeling that he is deprived of justice.”

He set aside the judgment and remanded the case for a fresh trial. The court also said there shall be an inquiry against the investigating officer and the public prosecutor. The court directed the registrar general to send the High Court and the magistrate court judgment copy to the Chief Justice for perusal.

According to the prosecution, on August 24, 2001, the wife of complainant Namdeorao Kakade, along with Vimalabai, her daughter Shobha, and another girl, Bali, were going to the field of Ramgopal Bansilal Vayas. When they were near Kamunja Phata in Amravati, a speeding jeep hit Shobha. She was declared dead after she was taken to the nearest hospital. Jeep driver Majid Khan Pathan was arrested later.

The prosecution informed the High Court that after conducting the trial, the magistrate had held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that at the time of the accident, the jeep was being driven rashly and negligently. “The magistrate held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused caused the death… driving rashly and negligently,” the prosecutor said.

Justice Haq said: “The prosecution, as well as the magistrate, completely failed to discharge their obligation of seeing that justice is done. Though the prosecution had cited five eye witnesses, none of them were examined. Learned assistant public prosecutor has submitted that although bailable warrant was issued against witnesses (including eye-witnesses) the report of execution of bailable warrant is not found on record.”

He added: “… It is clear that the proceedings are taken up only with the object of acquitting the accused. This is glaring case of dereliction of duty, not only on the part of the investigating officer (prosecution), but also the assistant public prosecutor, who acted as prosecutor before the magistrate, as also on the part of the magistrate.”