ACQUITTING A car driver booked for knocking down a six-year-old, resulting in the latter’s death, a metropolitan magistrate’s court, in a recent order, said that the child’s parents had not taken “enough care” to prevent him from going near the road. The family was homeless and lived on a street in South Mumbai.
The incident took place near Grant Road station on December 31, 2018 when the victim Ranveer’s father, Ketan Pawar, was crossing the road to access the public utility for a bath. Ranveer was crossing over to go towards Pawar when he was dashed by a car. He was rushed to the hospital but he died after a few days while undergoing treatment. The police booked the driver, Prashant Kamble, under relevant sections of rash and negligent driving and death due to negligence. The court said that as per the evidence, the boy’s mother was finishing chores when the incident took place.
“The age of the deceased child is six years. It means that he was a very small kid and (did) not understand the road, traffic, etc. Sangita Ketan Pawar (PW2) (child’s mother) specifically deposed that she was collecting the clothes. It means that she has kept her son near the road and she was not looking at him. No small kid at such an age should be playing alone at the side of the road but he was crossing the road it means that enough care was not taken by their parents. The parents should not have kept him alone near the passing road. Therefore, if the child suddenly came on the road and was hit by the car then it cannot be said that it is only the negligent driving of the accused,” metropolitan magistrate Nadeem Patel said. The court added that in such circumstances it is difficult to hold the driver responsible for rash and negligent driving.
Sangita, in her testimony, said that the car was moving at a high speed. She, however, did not identify whether Kamble was the one driving the vehicle. The court said that the identification of the witness is in question, adding that the burden was on the prosecution to prove that Kamble was driving. It said that no other witness from the accident site had given details of the vehicle, its registration number and its model. “These factors are very important for identification of the vehicle as well as the accused but these all are missing. This also creates doubt in the story of the prosecution,” the court said.