Court goes easy on reckless driver who took injured to doctor

A man's act of taking two injured persons to a doctor has earned him the leniency of a Delhi court which set aside the two-month jail term awarded to him for endangering the life of others by rash driving.
The court, while releasing Gramin Sewa driver Pradeep Tanwar, 47, on probation for one year, said he deserved an opportunity to reform himself as the judicial system is based upon reformative method.
"The convict himself had taken the injured persons to a nearby dispensary and also considering the fact that our judicial system is based upon reformative method and in order to afford an opportunity to the convict to reform himself, ends of justice would be met if he is released on probation for a period of one year," Special Judge Savita Rao said.

According to the prosecution, on October 18, 2013 the complainants Anup Singh and Kuldeep were going home near Fatehpur Beri in Southwest Delhi when a Gramin Sewa driven by the convict hit them.
Due to the impact, the victims fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries, it said, adding that the driver, however, took them to a clinic for treatment but ran away after dropping them.
The judge released Tanwar on probation on a bond of Rs 10,000 with one surety of like amount while directing him to maintain peace and good behaviour.

"During this period of probation, he shall abstain from any illegal activity and shall keep peace and good behaviour and on failure of appellant to comply with the terms and conditions of probation bond, he shall undergo the sentence as prescribed by trial court," the judge said.

The court also asked him to pay a compensation amount of Rs 5000 each, payable to both the victims, failing which he shall undergo the sentence as awarded by Trial court.
A magisterial court had held Tanwar guilty of offences under sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (endangering life or personal safety of others) and 338 (causing grievous hurt by endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Motor Vehicle Act and sentenced him to jail for two months.
The convict, in his appeal against this order, contended that rash and negligent driving was not proved and there was no witness in the case.

The sessions court, however, refused to accept this contention and upheld his conviction but modified the jail term noting some mitigating factors.
"It is a matter of common knowledge that public persons due to fear of police and to avoid visits to court/police station, generally remain reluctant to become witness to the incident," it said.