Case Briefs
Truth and Youth (TAY) 2021. All rights reserved.

Kasim Ali Vs. The State


Author: Ritika Guj, 2nd year student at Dr. B.R Ambekar National Law University, Sonipat.

Essential details of the case

CNR Number: DLSW010014082020

Appellant: Kasim Ali

Respondent: The State NCT of Delhi

Bench: Deepak Wason

Date of Judgment: 26th February 2021

Original Copy: View 

Statutes Involved:  Section 374 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 

Issues at hand

  • Whether the accused was responsible for the death of Sh. Ram Kumar.
  • Whether the accused was rash driving.
  • Whether the accused is rightly convicted

Background of the Case

  • The appellant was accused that on 28.08.2000 he was driving the bus DL1PA2984 in such a way to harm someone and eventually he hit Ram Kumar which resulted in his death. FIR was filed against him under section 279/304A of IPC and for that he was imprisonment for 18 months and he had to pay Rs 1,00,000 for the family of deceased 
  • There were 12 witnesses from the side of prosecution but only the first witness named Sh. Jasvir Singh was eye witness.
  • The accused appealed that he is being falsely implicated in the case and after the cross examination by the lawyer of appellant it came out that it was not the eye witness who had complained neither he had seen the accident taking place in front of his eyes, he just heard from the crowd and stated this
  • There were no pictures or videos or any other statement of witness that could prove that the accused did this intentionally. Since, there were no creditability therefore the accused was given benefit of doubt 

Judgment

  • The appelent was found not guilty under section 279/304 A of IPC 
  • The court accepted the appeal and the appellant was allowed to get fresh bail bounds of Rs 25000 under section 437 A Cr.PC

Critical analysis

  • In this case the accused was blamed for rash driving and killing someone even though none of the witness had seen him driving therefore giving him benefit of doubt was necessary because as it is believed by the judiciary system of our country that no innocent should be punished.
  • The eyewitness kept changing his statement whenever he was cross-examined for example first, he said that he had seen the accused running but later he admitted that he hadn’t seen the accused at the spot and he came to know about the identity through the police. 
  • The court had no evidence which could prove that it was the accused who was driving that day. Therefore, the court took the decision of giving benefit of doubt to the accused. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Total
0
Share