Bus driver's jail term quashed, case sent back to trial court

A Delhi court has set aside the two-year jail term awarded to a bus driver for crushing a person under the vehicle's wheels nearly two decades ago, saying he was not granted a fair trial and must be given one more opportunity to defend himself.

Additional Sessions Judge Sanjiv Jain quashed the conviction and jail term of Deepak, considering that he was not properly represented by his counsel during the trial.

"Looking into the gravity of the offence and the fact that the appellant/accused was not adequately represented by his counsel during trial and that the complainant is traceable and other prosecution witnesses are traceable, I am of the view that the appellant/accused must have an opportunity to cross examine them.
 

"The poverty of the appellant for not paying the cost imposed by the trial court may not be allowed to stand in between the fair trial of the case... The conviction and sentence of the appellant is set aside," the judge said and sent the case back to the magisterial court for cross examination of the witnesses.

The bus driver had moved the sessions court against the magisterial court's June 3, 2017 order sentencing him to two years in jail for causing death of a person due to negligent driving.

He was convicted of offences under sections 304A (causing death by negligence) and 279 (rash driving) of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, on July 19, 1999, complainant Arvind Kumar was standing at a bus stop at Khanpur here along with his brother Chandan when a negligently and rashly driven bus jumped the traffic signal, came towards the public and ran over Chandan.

Arvind took his brother to a nearby hospital with the help of the police but he was declared brought dead.

In his appeal against the trial court order, the driver contended that the complainant was not cross examined as his counsel had failed to appear on several hearings. He alleged that the trial court also failed to provide him any legal assistance.

The court noted that the complainant could not be served the summons for so many years but now his father appeared before it and gave the assurance to bring his son to the court for cross examination.