It has taken almost 15 years for Baburao Nalge, a driver attached with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), to get a clean slate.
The Bombay High Court recently quashed and set aside his one-day conviction in a road accident case involving the death of a bicyclist.
What was Nagle convicted of?
Nagle was convicted by a judicial magistrate court in 1995 on the charge of causing death due to rash and negligent driving of one Balaji Bhong. The accident had occurred on January 9, 1994, when Nalge was driving his bus towards Nanded.
The police had registered a case under sections 427 (mischief), 304 (A) (causing death by negligence) and 279 (rash driving) of the Indian Penal Code.
Why did he want the conviction quashed?
Though Nagle was sentenced to only a day in prison, specifically until the court rises (ie wraps up proceedings for the day), he was determined to get his conviction quashed as, according to him, he was not at fault for the accident that day.
What did the HC judge say?
Justice VM Deshpande, after going through the evidence, noted, "The complainant (father of the deceased) and an eyewitness have said the bus stop was 100 feet from the incident spot. Thus, it is hard to believe that within that (little) space, the bus accelerated, as claimed by the prosecution."
What was the prosecution's case?
According to the prosecution, Nagle was driving on the wrong side of the road and, hence, had hit Bhong, who was taken to hospital with multiple injuries but declared dead. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses.
But what had the bus conductor said happened?
The conductor, Vyenkaatrao Bhosale, had deposed that there was a truck blocking the road, and hence, Nagle had to move the bus on the right, from where the deceased was coming, leading to the accident.
According to the lower courts...
Based on the evidence adduced, the magistrate court on January 18, 1995, had acquitted Nagle of the charge of mischief but held him guilty under section 304 (A) of IPC. Nagle challenged the order in the sessions court in Nanded, which, by its order dated May 24, 2001, dismissed his appeal and upheld the magistrate court order. He then moved HC.
What was the ruling?
Observing that the lower courts had completely disregarded the statement of the bus conductor, the HC said, "The prosecution has failed to demonstrate that at the relevant time the applicant was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the accident."
