We see road accidents which eventually become the reason for many people’s death. Road accidents contribute significantly in the number of deaths that take place in India. These accidents occur not by only rash driving or due to the mistakes of drivers, sometimes they happen because of pedestrians too.

If you cross a road at a point where there is no zebra crossing or a signal and get run over, the driver cannot be blamed for negligence. Here’s how.

In Mumbai, a 26-year-old youth charged with rash and negligent driving after running over a child with his vehicle was acquitted by a magistrate’s court. The reason for acquitting the youth was explained, ‘the boy was trying to cross the busy road and there was no zebra crossing or signal.’

According to the reports, the prosecution said that the incident took place outside The National Sports Club Of India (NSCI) on October 23, 2012, and went to trial in March 2013.

The deceased’s brother, who was a witness, told the court that both he and his brother along with their younger sister were trying to cross the road when the vehicle rammed into him. The witness also told that the driver stopped the vehicle at a little distance from the accident spot. His brother was admitted at Nair Hospital by the police where he died a day after the mishap.

After many trials and hearings, the court said that,

“Admittedly, the boy was crossing the road, not from the zebra crossing. Admittedly, there was also no signal pole at the place of the accident. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was fault or negligence of the accused.”

During the hearing, the court observed that the witness agreed to the fact that they were trying to cross the road when there was heavy traffic and his brother showed negligence in terms of safety. Other than the main witness, there were two other witnesses also and all of them said that there was no zebra crossing or signal at the accident spot.

Referring to the evidence brought on record in the cross-examination of the brother, the court pointed out that he had admitted that the road had heavy traffic and despite the constant flow of vehicles, his brother was in a hurry. The court further said that the witness also admitted that the accident had taken place due to negligence on the part of his brother.

After considering these points, the court came to the conclusion that nothing could prove that the evidence on record did not reflect rash and negligent driving. The court stated,

“For that purpose, the specific cogent evidence is must but, the prosecution has failed to bring cogent evidence. In such circumstances, accused deserves acquittal.”

What do you say about the decision took by the court? Do you agree with it? Share your views with us in the comments section below.