The Bombay High Court has set aside the conviction of a man, who was sentenced to six months in prison for rash and negligent driving that caused the death of a cyclist in 2018. Justice Milind Jadhav quashed the orders of the trial court and sessions court, citing insufficient evidence to prove that Presenjeet Sen was driving the car involved in the accident.
The incident occurred on March 17, 2018, near Jai Ganesh Samrajya Chowk, Pune, when a car allegedly driven by Sen hit a bicycle from behind, injuring cyclist Bachhalal Pal, who succumbed to his injuries three days later. Sen and his friends, occupants of the car at the time, immediately rushed Pal to the hospital.
Advocate Satyavrat Joshi, representing Sen, argued that the prosecution failed to establish Sen as the driver. He highlighted inconsistencies in the testimony of Ramsaware Pal, the deceased’s nephew, the prosecution’s sole eyewitness. “The car was hired from a rental company, and it is unclear whether it was provided with a driver,” Joshi submitted, adding that the RTO report indicated only minor damage to the car, which was equipped with a speed governor, challenging the claim of high-speed driving.
Justice Jadhav noted several gaps in the prosecution’s case. Despite the car being a rental, the investigating officer did not verify whether a driver was provided by the company. The rental company representative also failed to provide incriminating evidence. “The prosecution case does not delve upon the theory of the driver of the car, if so provided or not provided by the Company. No details whatsoever are given,” observed the court.
The court also pointed out contradictions in Ramsaware Pal’s testimony. He claimed to have seen “three boys and two girls” exiting the car after the accident. Justice Jadhav noted that this evidence suggested the presence of a driver, apart from Sen and his friends. “Once this evidence… relating to the occupants of the car is considered, then the three boys in the car would definitely be (i) Shubhankar (ii) Presenjeet (Applicant) and (iii) the driver of the car,” Justice Jadhav observed.
Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the judge granted Sen the benefit of doubt. “The fact that the Applicant was driving the car has not been investigated at all… Therefore, benefit of doubt will have to be given to the Applicant,” the court ruled.
