State vs Ramkesh on 23 November, 2023
Thus, even if the evidence of the hostile witness/PW1 Suraj
is considered partly, there remains nothing in the case of the prosecution to prove the
identity of the accused as the same person who was driving the offending vehicle
bearing registration no. HR 67A 4138, rashly and negligently on the date of the
incident which led to causing of death of victim Savita. No other independent
eyewitness of the incident has been cited by the prosecution. There is no other
circumstance or clinching piece of evidence such as CCTV footage, mentioned in the
chargesheet, that points towards the guilt of the accused. PW2/IO SI Ramesh Kumar
is police witness, and he is not a witness to the offence of causing of death on account
Page no. 7 / 8
FIR No.46/2018 (State vs. Ramkesh) PS Sagarpur
of rash and negligent driving by the accused, sufficient only to prove that pursuant to
the complaint received on 03.03.2018, an FIR no. 46/2018 was lodged at PS Tughlak
Road and investigation was conducted thereupon. The prosecution has NOT
successfully proved that the accused Ramkesh was driving the offending vehicle
bearing registration no. HR 67A 4138, rashly and negligently on the date of the
incident which led to causing of death of victim Savita. The testimony of all the
remaining witnesses together, is insufficient to prove the allegations against the
accused qua offence u/s. 279/304A IPC. Thus, there is nothing on record to connect
the accused with the commission of the offence u/s 279/304A IPC.