Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. He submits that the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was crossing the Sardar Patel Marg road for going towards Malcha Marg bus stand, but it is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased was crossing the road at zebra crossing. A perusal of the site plan, Ex PW9/B, also shows that the deceased was not crossing the road at zebra crossing next to traffic light intersection. He submits that even assuming that the petitioner was driving the offending vehicle which hit the deceased, no negligence could be attributed to the petitioner when the deceased was randomly crossing the road without following the traffic rules.

(Emphasis Supplied)

18. It is the prosecution case that the accident had taken place at around 8.15 PM to 8.20 PM in the month of June. This court can take judicial notice of the fact that in the month of June in Delhi, by 8.15 PM it is invariably dark. It is also the case of prosecution that the deceased was crossing Sardar Patel Marg, which is a two way road as per the testimony of the IO/PW-9. The site plan, Ex PW-9/B, also shows that Sardar Patel Marg is a two way road with divider in between. Conspicuously, it is not the case of the prosecution that deceased was crossing the road at zebra crossing while the traffic signal was red. Even in the site plan, Ex PW-9/B, no zebra crossing or traffic intersection has been indicated, rather the said site plan indicates that the deceased was crossing the road at a point other than zebra crossing and no traffic signal has been shown near the spot of accident, in the site plan. If the deceased was crossing Sardar Patel Marg at a point other than zebra crossing during the time when it was dark and the traffic was flowing freely in the absence of any red light signal, no negligence can be attributed to the petitioner.

19. I am supported in my view by a decision of this Court in State v. Rajesh, (2019) 10 AD (Delhi) 344, wherein the deceased was hit by the offending vehicle while crossing the road and the prosecution had failed to establish that the accident had taken place when the deceased was crossing the road at zebra crossing while the light was red, it was held as under:

"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 PW7 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."