"When a person meets an accident, it is difficult for him to note down the exact (complete) registration number of the offending vehicle," Metropolitan Magistrate Charu Aggarwal said.
"Perusal of statement (of the victim) dated November 10, 2001, also shows that deceased was totally illiterate as he had put the thumb impression on the statement which implies that he could not even sign.
"In above situation, mentioning of registration number in the statement creates doubt in my mind that injured was either tutored by the IO (Investigating Officer) or IO himself has recorded the statement of injured and managed to put his thumb impression," the court said.
The case dates back to November 2001 when 65-year-old Ram Prasad was hit by a scooter allegedly driven rashly by accused Vijay Makkar near Red Fort. Prasad in her statement to the IO said the vehicle was being driven rashly and at high speed.
The victim succumbed to his injuries at the hospital three days later.
The prosecution contended that the victim's statement can be used as a dying declaration.
More From This Section
The court, however, noted that Prasad was an aged and illiterate person and it was doubtful how he could remember the registration number of the scooter when he was so severely injured as to die three days later.
The court also noted the accused cannot be convicted solely on the basis of victim's statement that the scooter was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed.
"Mere high speed does not come within the purview of rashness and negligence. High speed is relative term. On the busy road where the heavy traffic runs, even the speed of 20 kms may be high and on the high ways even the speed of 50-60 kms is not high.
"Unless, the accused gets the opportunity to cross examine the witness on high speed, the accused cannot be convicted solely on this statement," the judge said.