Rash driving HC upholds 4month jail term

  • | Wednesday | 5th December, 2018

The court upheld the four month jail verdict by the trial court and said that overturning it would weaken “the deterrent effect of law”.The plea by the accused was that he has no criminal antecedents. PANAJI: Taking a strict view in a case of rash and negligent driving resulting in death, the high court of Bombay at Goa declined to let of an accused with an admonition, holding that “it is likely to send a wrong signal to society”. However, the judge said the conduct of the applicant did not deserve the benefit of extending the Probation of Offenders Act . However, the high court gave him benefit of doubt on this charge as there was no clear evidence.The conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the trial court was set aside by the high court. The police alleged that he was driving under the influence of alcohol.

PANAJI: Taking a strict view in a case of rash and negligent driving resulting in death, the high court of Bombay at Goa declined to let of an accused with an admonition, holding that “it is likely to send a wrong signal to society”. The court upheld the four month jail verdict by the trial court and said that overturning it would weaken “the deterrent effect of law”.The plea by the accused was that he has no criminal antecedents. However, the judge said the conduct of the applicant did not deserve the benefit of extending the Probation of Offenders Act . During trial, the applicant even disputed that he was driving the vehicle, the high court noted.“If the accused, who has been found guilty of an offence of rash and negligent driving resulting in death of a pedestrian or any other user of the road, is let off on admonition, it is likely to send a wrong signal to the society in general, apart from weakening the deterrent effect of the punishment,” Justice C V Bhadang observed.The accused’s lawyer Nikhil Pai argued that at the time of the accident, in 2012, the accused was 21 years old and submitted that his client may be released on admonition by extending to him the benefit of the Probation Offenders Act.Additional public prosecutor Pravin Faldessai contended that the benefit of the law cannot be given to the accused as his was a serious offence, one in which a young girl lost her life.According to the police, on April 22, 2012, the accused, Bonny D’Souza drove the car in rash and negligent manner and knocked down Ameena, 18, near Rawanfond, while she was walking. The police alleged that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. However, the high court gave him benefit of doubt on this charge as there was no clear evidence.The conviction and sentence awarded to the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the trial court was set aside by the high court. Under Section 185, if a person driving or attempting to drive a vehicle has alcohol levels exceeding 30mg per 100ml of blood detected by a breath analyser test then he is guilty of the offence of drunken driving.

If You Like This Story, Support NYOOOZ

NYOOOZ SUPPORTER

NYOOOZ FRIEND

Your support to NYOOOZ will help us to continue create and publish news for and from smaller cities, which also need equal voice as much as citizens living in bigger cities have through mainstream media organizations.


Stay updated with all the Latest Goa headlines here. For more exclusive & live news updates from all around India, stay connected with NYOOOZ.

Related Articles