What happens when the witnesses to a fatal accident and the prosecution can’t agree on the site of the mishap and the car model? The accused driver gets away with it.
This was the case in an accident which occurred on March 15, 2017.
A Maruti Wagon R, apparently driven by Ankit Nagpal, resident of Haryana, and proceeding from Guirim towards Parra struck a two-wheeler rider near St Anthony chapel, Perxetwaddo, Guirim.
The rider, Anthony Menezes sustained serious injuries and died while undergoing treatment.
While the prosecution’s case was that the accident occurred near St Anthony’s chapel, five witnesses, who deposed for the prosecution in court said the accident took place near Piedade chapel.
Secondly, while four witnesses said the car was a Wagon R, the fifth said it was a Maruti Omni.
The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa, in the judgement noted that “the spot of the offence and the vehicle involved in the accident are extremely vital for proving an accident caused by rash and negligent driving.”
“However, in the present case, there is no corroboration of the prosecution as regards to the spot of the accident and there are contradictions as regards the vehicle involved,” the judgement noted.
One of the witnesses told the court that the driver of the car was talking on the phone when the accident occurred, but failed to identify him.
Lastly, the judgement stated that while the accident occurred on March 15, the complaint was dated 22 March. The police failed to explain the delay.
As a result, Ankit Nagpal was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
