Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Thereafter, PW-7 was cross-examined by the learned counsel appearing for the accused. In her cross-examination, she stated that her statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer at her home. This was in variance with her statement recorded earlier. She stated that the incident had taken place about half a kilometer ahead from the red light and there was no zebra crossing at the spot. She stated that at the time of the crossing the road, the deceased was walking five to six metres behind her. When she heard the noise of impact, she turned back and saw that the victim was lying on the road. She stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital in a car which was present on the spot. However, at another point she stated that she had seen the accused coming on a scooter and had also seen that he had struck the deceased (Smt Sidhanta Devi) with his scooter. She had stated that she had remained in the hospital after getting Smt Sidhanta Devi admitted, and had returned home when the husband of the deceased came to the hospital. She further stated that the police had called her to the Ahlmad room and made inquiries from her. It is material to note that she also stated that after returning from Saroj Hospital, she never visited the police station in regard to the case.

7. In her examination-in-chief, PW-7 had stated that she and the deceased were walking back home. However, in her cross-examination, she has stated that the deceased was walking five to six metres behind her. PW-7 had also stated that she and the deceased were crossing the road at the red light located in C-Block, Saraswati Vihar. However, in her cross-examination, she had stated that the accident had taken place half a kilometer ahead from the red light. Her testimony is also inconsistent on the question whether the deceased was crossing the road at a zebra crossing. At one point in her cross-examination, she had stated that there was no zebra crossing at the spot. However, subsequently, she denied the suggestion that the deceased was crossing the road without red light and zebra crossing.

8. A plain reading of the testimony indicates that there is ambiguity regarding the spot where the accident had taken place. However, it does appear that the victim was not crossing the road at a red light. There is no certainty as to whether the deceased was crossing the road at a red light and at a zebra crossing, or whether the deceased was crossing the road at another point, half a kilometer away, where there was no zebra crossing.

9. The prosecution has sought to establish the location of the incident on the basis of a site plan (Ex. PW-10/B). The said site plan was prepared by ASI Lala Ram (PW-10). He deposed that he had gone to the hospital and had recorded the statement of PW-7 and thereafter he, along with PW-7, had returned to the accident site to prepare the site plan - Ex. PW-10/B. The site plan also bears PW-10's signature. However, it is relevant to note that the site plan does not bear the signature of Smt Munni Devi. She has unequivocally stated that she did not accompany any police official to the accident site after the incident. On the contrary, she had asserted that she remained in the hospital after admitting the deceased till the husband of the deceased arrived; thereafter, she returned back home. The testimonies of PW-10 and PW- 7 ran contrary to each other in this regard.

12. Clearly if it was established that the victim was crossing the road at a zebra crossing while the light was red; negligence on part of the respondent would be established. This would not be so if the deceased was crossing the road at any other point. It is difficult to accept that negligence on part of the respondent has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. PW-7 had at one point stated that she had seen the accused riding the scooter in a fast and negligent manner and striking the deceased. However, in her cross-examination, she stated that the deceased was walking five to six metres behind her and she had turned back on hearing the noise of the impact. Thus, clearly, she could not have witnessed the respondent riding the scooter in a fast and negligent manner, as deposed by her. The site plan (PW-10/B) indicates that the incident had taken place at a T-Junction and it has been affirmed that there was a zebra crossing at the road. However, the testimony of PW- 7 is inconsistent in this regard. Although, at one point she had stated that the deceased and her were crossing the road at the red light, she had also stated that there was no zebra crossing at the spot where they were crossing the road. In her cross-examination she had stated that the deceased and her were crossing the road about half a kilometer ahead from the red light. In view of the inconsistencies in the testimony, the prosecution has been unable to establish that the accident had taken place while the deceased was crossing the road at the zebra crossing.