State vs . Arvinder Singh on 3 December, 2019
In his statement i.e.
Ex.PW-1/A, he has stated that he was crossing the road
through zebra crossing whereas PW7 IO SI Jagbir Singh
C.Case No. 538162/16 State Vs. Arvinder Singh Page No. 7 of 9
has deposed that there was no red light, blinkers or zebra
crossing at the spot. As per site plan Ex.PW7/B, the injured
is stated to have crossed the road at point A but there is
no zebra crossing depicted in the site plan. Moreover, the
IO has also stated that there was no zebra crossing at the
spot. PW1 i.e. injured deposed that he was crossing he
ring road which is around 100 ft. wide and the culpability
of the accused cannot be established in the absence of
any rashness on his part. Even though PW1 has denied
that he was not crossing the road from broken railing but
the same is belied in the testimony of PW7 who has
categorically stated that there was no zebra crossing at
the spot and contributing negligence of the injured in
which the driver has no part will absolve the accused.
Morever, DW-2, who was examined as defence witness
deposed that the accident occurred on account of the fault
of the complainant/injured, who was running to cross the
road and also the fault of the car driver, who was driving
the car at a fast speed. The injured was not crossing the
road from zebra crossing. The said testimony of DW2 has
not been shaken by the Ld. APP during cross-examination.