MUMBAI: A 53-year-old Dadar businessman, accused of knocking down a biker with his car in 2013, was acquitted after the court accepted as “probable” his defence that he was being falsely implicated after the biker’s parents refused to repay Rs 40,000 he had spent on his treatment after finding him unconscious on the road.
Acquitting Sameer Pethe, the magistrate’s court said the biker had injuries, but “there is no evidence to prove the accused drove his four-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner… and caused grievous hurt to the injured”. The magistrate also noted that Abhijeet Mewada, the biker who became unconscious soon after falling down, could not have identified the car driver at the time of the incident.
"Road accident cases generally end up in long-drawn legal battles. The courts, on most occasions, rely heavily on the victims’ testimonials before giving verdict. In this case, however, the court paid minute attention to the material and circumstantial evidence before rejecting the victim’s claims. Hopefully, a case like this should not prevent Good Samaritans from helping accident victims.-TimesView"
Another witness, too, did not identify Pethe, saying he arrived at the scene only after the accident.
Pethe told the court that Mewada had lost control of his bike and fallen on the concrete road. He helped him, and later when he asked his parents to repay the money he had spent on his treatment, they refused and concocted the story.
Mewada had suffered shoulder and arm injuries. He told the court that on October 25, 2013, between 8 and 10pm, he was going home to Worli from Shivaji Park. He accused Pethe of taking an illegal U-turn and ramming into him. He said he lost his senses soon after falling down.
The investigating officer had specified in his cross-examination that Mewada had not given detailed description of Pethe during the recording of his statement.
The court pointed out that the cop had deposed that Mewada had not seen Pethe at the time of the incident. “In my view, if the injured had seen the accused at the time of the incident, he would have narrated it while recording his statement…,” said the court.
It added that Mewada had not clarified when he saw the accused in the car. “The evidence of the informant does not inspire confidence. In the circumstances, the defence raised by the accused appears to be probable,” the court said.
