Fewer convictions in mishap cases as evidence comes crashing down in trials

MUMBAI: In 2013, a speeding truck killed Aditya Sarkate, who was carrying his bicycle, in Kandivli. Last month, the driver, Dadarao Pingale, 25, was acquitted for “lack of effort and diligence” by the investigating agency.

In 2009, Hetal Matondkar was run over by a bus in Bandra. The driver, Ramlal Kori, was arrested in July 2013, but was acquitted recently as, according to the court, “the prosecution miserably failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence”.

Cause for concern? Yes, considering, Maharashtra saw 13,378 deaths and 31,203 injuries owing to rash and negligent driving in 2016, according to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). In Mumbai, rash and negligent driving left 475 people dead and 3,900 hurt in 2016.

While accidents and road safety often lead to uproar, the trials, the most important aspect of giving justice to the victims, don’t often end in conviction, thanks to the errors by the police and prosecution while collecting evidence, getting witnesses on record or simply following the procedure.

NO EVIDENCE

Experts blame fewer convictions on negligence in following the procedure. For instance, in Sarkate’s case, an FIR was filed only after a witness, who was out on a morning walk, approached the police. The Borivli court pointed out the numerous flaws, most important being that the FIR was not proved. While testifying in court, Patil stated the vehicle number and also identified the accused driver, but his evidence was not held decisive as he had given a different vehicle number in his statement to the police. “The prosecution made no attempt to prove the vehicle inspection report. It is not known whether there was any defect in the vehicle or not. The reluctance on part of investigating agency and the prosecution, as they failed to put up before the court the best available evidence [led to the result],” Borivli metropolitan magistrate Prasad Kulkarni held.

In Matondkar’s case, the prosecution examined nine of the 10 witnesses. “None of the men witnessed the actual incident,” Bandra metropolitan magistrate SN Shinde said, noting “the investigating officer did not seize the bus and there was no inspection done by the regional transport office”.

“The traffic police cannot investigate these cases because it is a criminal offence. They are the first responders and must assist the local police in getting hold of witnesses. Collecting proper evidence is the only way to ensure convictions,” said special public prosecutor Kalpana Chavan.

NO WITNESS

Getting witnesses remains another challenge. A Khar resident, Alisha Advani, and her elderly mother, Anita, were injured after an autorickshaw crashed into them at Linking Road on April 17, 2016.

Advani testified that her mother fell unconscious after being hit by the vehicle and she too had failed to see who was driving. “It is necessary for the prosecution to prove negligence on part of the accused. It can only be exacted after taking into account all factors, including the speed of the vehicle, whether the victim was on foot or in a vehicle and which side of the road did the accident occur,” additional chief metropolitan magistrate YP Manathkar said, in his order, acquitted the suspect, Hukumdev Yadav, 27.

Explaining the reason behind such incidents, an assistant inspector with a local police station, said, “Getting witnesses proves to be a challenge. Most people don’t want to get involved in court cases.”

SOLUTIONS

How can we improve the scenario? According to lawyers, the duration of the trial affects the outcome. “The courts should cut short the trial. It is high time the cases get segregated based on gravity of the case, so a plea bargain is made available,” said lawyer Amit Desai.